noncompetition clause in New York

2020A restrictive covenant may be partially enforced to the extent necessary to protect a company's legitimate interests ( see BDO Seidman v Hirschberg , 93 NY2d 382, 394 ).

2000We agree with plaintiff that the agreement not to compete is reasonable in scope and duration (see, BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 388-389 ) and that the court’s finding that defendant did not breach the agreement is against the weight of the evidence because defendant admitted that he had provided some chiropractic services within a 15-mile radius of plaintiff’s office.

2014The contract language is ambiguous as to the area covered by the noncompetition clause (see New Plan of Hillside Vil., LLC v Surrette, 108 AD3d 512 , 513 [2013]; Vale v 221 Thompson, LLC, 82 AD3d 754 [2011]).

2014The contract language is ambiguous as to the area covered by the noncompetition clause (see New Plan of Hillside Vil., LLC v Surrette, 108 AD3d 512 , 513 [2013]; Vale v 221 Thompson, LLC, 82 AD3d 754 [2011]).

2014The contract language is ambiguous as to the area covered by the noncompetition clause (see New Plan of Hillside Vil., LLC v Surrette, 108 AD3d 512 , 513 [2013]; Vale v 221 Thompson, LLC, 82 AD3d 754 [2011]).

2014The contract language is ambiguous as to the area covered by the noncompetition clause (see New Plan of Hillside Vil., LLC v Surrette, 108 AD3d 512 , 513 [2013]; Vale v 221 Thompson, LLC, 82 AD3d 754 [2011]).

2010Accordingly, the agreement does not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds because it does not set out all of the material terms of the alleged employment contract (see Durso, 37 AD3d at 647 ), and does not provide any objective method for determining the missing material terms (see Cooper Sq.

2006Kessler & Assoc., Ltd. v White, 28 AD3d 724 [2006]; Stiepleman Coverage Corp. v Raifman, 258 AD2d 515, 516 [1999]).

2006In addition, the pleadings sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging defamation (see generally CPLR 3106 [a]; Sirianni v Rafaloff, 284 AD2d 447 [2001]), and the defendant did not establish as a matter of law that the statements were protected by qualified privilege (see Doe v Church of St.

2005Moreover, the defendant’s conclusory allegations of breach of the noncompetition clause in the parties’ stock purchase agreement did not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to his default under the separate obligations set forth in the promissory note (see Neuhaus v McGovern, 293 AD2d 727, 728 [2002]; Reilly-Whiteman, Inc. v Cherry Hill Textiles, 191 AD2d 486, 487 [1993]; Lener v Club Med, 168 AD2d 433, 435 [1990]; Caton v Lloyd, 138 AD2d 442 [1988]; cf. Vecchio v Colangelo, 274 AD2d 469, 471 [2000]).

2004Corp. v Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club, 156 AD2d 550 [1989]; Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, 119 AD2d 99 [1986]; Borne Chem.

2004Corp. v Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club, 156 AD2d 550 [1989]; Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, 119 AD2d 99 [1986]; Borne Chem.

1994That the letter agreement included a noncompetition clause that benefitted the partnership or that the partnership was benefitted as a result of the agreement, did not make the letter agreement binding on the partnership (see, Matter of Dunham, 52 Misc 2d 364 ; Ravold v Fred Beers, Inc., 151 Misc 628 ).

1994That the letter agreement included a noncompetition clause that benefitted the partnership or that the partnership was benefitted as a result of the agreement, did not make the letter agreement binding on the partnership (see, Matter of Dunham, 52 Misc 2d 364 ; Ravold v Fred Beers, Inc., 151 Misc 628 ).

1991Supreme Court found that the settlement agreement failed to satisfy the "open court” requirement of CPLR 2104, but nonetheless held it to be binding based upon the transcription and in reliance upon the phrase "other record” tangentially referred to in Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp. ( 31 NY2d 1, 9-10 ).

1987(Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 271 ; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Kessler, 52 NY2d 276 .) Contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, the record demonstrates that the business activity to be conducted by the "interconnection devices partnership” under the proposed joint venture is "substantially similar” to and is "in competition with” the business conducted by the plaintiff, thereby violating the noncompetition clause.

1987(Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 271 ; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Kessler, 52 NY2d 276 .) Contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, the record demonstrates that the business activity to be conducted by the "interconnection devices partnership” under the proposed joint venture is "substantially similar” to and is "in competition with” the business conducted by the plaintiff, thereby violating the noncompetition clause.

1987(Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 271 ; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Kessler, 52 NY2d 276 .) Contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, the record demonstrates that the business activity to be conducted by the "interconnection devices partnership” under the proposed joint venture is "substantially similar” to and is "in competition with” the business conducted by the plaintiff, thereby violating the noncompetition clause.

1987(Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 271 ; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Kessler, 52 NY2d 276 .) Contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, the record demonstrates that the business activity to be conducted by the "interconnection devices partnership” under the proposed joint venture is "substantially similar” to and is "in competition with” the business conducted by the plaintiff, thereby violating the noncompetition clause.

1981The measure of damages for wrongful diversion of good will or competition in violation of such a restrictive covenant is the loss sustained by reason of the breach, including the net profits of which the plaintiff was deprived by the defendant’s acts (Weinrauch v Kashkin, 64 AD2d 897, 898 ; Scientific Mgt.