Uniform Rental Division, Inc. v. Moreno
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- USI Insurance Services LLC v. Miner (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Ticor Title Insurance Co. Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Kenneth C. Cohen (2d Cir. 1999)
- McKay v. Communispond, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- 24 Seven, LLC v. Martinez (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Onsite Cos. v. Comfort (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Riordan v. Barbosa, No. 395945 (Mar. 1, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Anametrics Services, Inc. v. Clifford A. Botway, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Curtis v. Amela-Bouyea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Weiss v. Wiederlight (Conn. 1988)
- Support Systems Associates, Inc. v. Tavolacci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, for an injunction, defendant Moreno appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), dated March 9,1981, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, enjoined him, for a stated period, “from acting in any way which would show an intent to secure customers, known by him to be those of plaintiff during his employment with plaintiff”. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appellant was plaintiff’s “star” salesman. The restrictive covenant in his employment contract, so far as relevant, provided that appellant “will not for a period of two years after the end or termination of his employment * * * directly or indirectly * * * solicit, [or] serve *** any of the customers served by *** the Company *** during his employment”. We agree with Trial Term that the covenant was reasonable, essentially because of the narrowness and short duration of the limitation of appellant’s postemployment business activities (cf. American Broadcasting Cos. v Wolf, 52 NY2d 394). We further note that shortly before appellant notified plaintiff of his resignation he solicited, for his intended competitive business, one of plaintiff’s major accounts at a time when the latter’s contract with plaintiff had recently expired, and that this occurred while appellant was plaintiff’s representative whose duty it was to attempt to
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.