Genesis II Hair Replacement Studio, Ltd. v. Vallar

• Citation: 251 A.D.2d 1082,674 N.Y.S.2d 207
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5590 GENESIS II HAIR REPLACEMENT STUDIO, LTD., a/k/a Hair Replacement Systems, Appellant, v. Kristin Galeazzi VALLAR, f/k/a Kristin Galeazzi, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 10 June 1998
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 207

674 N.Y.S.2d 207

251 A.D.2d 1082, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5590

GENESIS II HAIR REPLACEMENT STUDIO, LTD., a/k/a Hair Replacement Systems, Appellant, v. Kristin Galeazzi VALLAR, f/k/a Kristin Galeazzi, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

June 10, 1998.

MacKenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, LLP, by Jennifer McCombs, Syracuse, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric Alderman Associates, LLP by Karen Taddeo, Syracuse, for Defendant-Respondent.

Before PINE, J.P., and HAYES, WISNER, PIGOTT and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendant from breaching the terms of restrictive covenants in her employment contract. Defendant was hired by plaintiff in 1989 as a licensed beautician. In September 1997 defendant left plaintiff's employ and opened a hair salon specializing in hair loss treatment. Plaintiff contends that defendant's operation of a similar business within 50 miles of plaintiff's studio in North Syracuse violates defendant's employment contract.

"[R]estrictive covenants contained in employment contracts that tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination are disfavored in the law" (Ken J. Pezrow Corp. v. Seifert, 197 A.D.2d 856, 602 N.Y.S.2d 468, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 83 N.Y.2d 798, 611 N.Y.S.2d 130, 633 N.E.2d 485). Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that enforcement of defendant's employment contract is "necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential customer lists or good will" (Briskin v. All Seasons Servs., 206 A.D.2d 906, 906-907, 615 N.Y.S.2d 166) or that defendant's services were "unique or extraordinary" (Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 308, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 353 N.E.2d 590, rearg. denied 40 N.Y.2d 918, 389 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 357 N.E.2d 1033; Newco Waste Sys. v. Swartzenberg, 125 A.D.2d 1004, 1005, 510 N.Y.S.2d 399). Plaintiff's allegation that defendant is attempting to solicit plaintiff's customers is conclusory, with no evidentiary detail (see, Holdsworth v. Doherty, 231 A.D.2d 930, 647 N.Y.S.2d 633; Faberge Intl. v. Di Pino, 109 A.D.2d 235, 240, 491 N.Y.S.2d 345). In addition, "[t]he conclusory allegations of plaintiff in support of its application do not establish that irreparable harm will result in the absence of injunctive relief" (Merola v. Telonis, 127 A.D.2d 1007, 513 N.Y.S.2d 66; see, Merrell Benco Agency v. Safrin, 231 A.D.2d...