Harris v. Patients Med., P.C., 8352N
Decision Date | 07 February 2019 |
Docket Number | 8352N,Index 159990/7595107/18 |
Parties | Marcia HARRIS, M.D., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PATIENTS MEDICAL, P.C., Defendant–Appellant. Patients Medical, P.C., Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. John P. Salerno M.D., et al., Third–Party Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bowles Liberman & Newman LLP, New York (David K. Bowles of counsel, New York), for appellant.
Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York (Henry L. Saurborn, Jr. of counsel, New York), for respondent.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary provisional remedy which will only issue where the proponent demonstrates (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balance of equities tipping in its favor ( CPLR 6301 ; Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc. , 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191 [2005] ). The granting of such relief is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court ( Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272 [1988] ). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
Patients Medical has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Under New York law, "[a] restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public" ( BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 388–389, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 [1999] ). In cases between professionals, courts recognize the legitimate interest an employer has against unfair competition, but, to avoid broad restraints on competition, have limited such employer interests "to the protection against misappropriation of the employer's trade secrets or of confidential customer lists, or protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary" ( id. at 389, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 ). We have found restrictive covenants to be unenforceable where the employees have not used the employers' confidential business information, or where the employees' services were not extraordinary or unique ( Buhler v. Maloney Consulting, 299 A.D.2d 190, 749 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept. 2002] ; TMP Worldwide v. Franzino, 269 A.D.2d 332, 703 N.Y.S.2d 183 [1st Dept. 2000] ).
Patients Medical has not established that Harris's OB/GYN and ancillary services are unique or extraordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White Oak Commercial Fin. v. Eia Inc.
... ... sound discretion of the motion court" (Harris v ... Patients Med., P.C., 169 A.D.3d 433, 434 [1st Dept ... ...
-
White Oak Commercial Fin. v. Eia Inc.
... ... sound discretion of the motion court" (Harris v ... Patients Med., P.C., 169 A.D.3d 433, 434 [1st Dept ... ...
-
Buchman v. 117 E. 72Nd St. Corp.
... ... 412 (1st Dep't 2023); Harris v. Patients Med., ... P.C. , 169 A.D.3d 433, 434 (1st ... ...
-
Bd. of Managers of 50 W. 127th St. Condo. v. Kidd
...of New York, 70 A.D.2d 580, 416 N.Y.S.2d 52 [2d Dept. 1979], affd 51 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979 [1980] ; see also169 A.D.3d 433 Spath v. Zack, 36 A.D.3d 410, 829 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Kaszovitz v. Weiszman, 110 A.D.2d 117, 120, 493 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2d Dept. 1985......