Metropolitan Medical Group, P.C. v. Eaton

Citation546 N.Y.S.2d 90,154 A.D.2d 252
PartiesMETROPOLITAN MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Margaret M. EATON, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.
Decision Date12 October 1989
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

S.M. Campbell, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

V.J. Syracuse, New York City, for defendant-respondent-appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, ASCH, MILONAS and WALLACH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.), entered April 26, 1989, which denied plaintiff Metropolitan Medical Group, P.C.'s motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendant Margaret M. Eaton from soliciting, inducing or contacting plaintiff's patients to terminate treatment with it and undergo therapy with her, allegedly in violation of a restrictive covenant in the employment agreement between the parties, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.), entered May 16, 1989, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1989, which granted defendant's motion for a protective order vacating plaintiff's notice to take depositions of defendant's patients, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff corporation, which furnishes medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment for private patients, hired defendant, a licensed psychologist, in July 1986, pursuant to an employment agreement executed by defendant on November 19, 1986, to provide psychological treatment and counseling services at Regent Hospital in New York County. Paragraph 7 of the employment agreement sets forth a restrictive covenant that defendant, for a period of one year after expiration or termination of employment, would not, directly or indirectly, compete by rendering clinical or psychological services within a radius of 20 miles of Regent.

After commencing this instant action, plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from violating the covenant and providing services as a practicing psychologist to plaintiff's patients within the prohibited radius. Plaintiff's president filed an affidavit in support of the motion for injunctive relief in which it was alleged that defendant had begun to treat at least 10 of plaintiff's Regent Hospital patients, as a result of inducements and enticements made by defendant while still employed by plaintiff.

In opposition, defendant filed an affidavit stating that, at the time she joined plaintiff, she brought with her private patients for whom she previously had provided counseling and treatment for drug and alcohol problems. When she decided to leave plaintiff, she informed her patients and left to them the choice to continue treatment with plaintiff or with her in her private practice in her apartment on the West Side of Manhattan, within the 20-mile radius. She admitted a number of plaintiff's former patients had sought her services but denied soliciting them to leave plaintiff. She contended that the nature of her relationship with these patients was such that, if treatment were discontinued as a result of an injunction, the patients would suffer. She annexed to her opposition papers letters from a number of her patients indicating that they had, on their own, chosen to continue therapy with her rather than with plaintiff. Fina...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Weber v. Tillman
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 8 de março de 1996
    ...employee obtains an unfair competitive advantage. See Duffner, 19 Ark.App. at 139-40, 718 S.W.2d 111; Metropolitan Med. Group v. Eaton, 154 App.Div.2d 252, 254, 546 N.Y.S.2d 90 (1989). In Fields Foundation, 103 Wis.2d at 474, 309 N.W.2d 125 the court pointed out that the physician-employee'......
  • Leon M. Reimer & Co., PC v. Cipolla
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 6 de junho de 1996
    ...law"); Contempo Com. v. MJM Creative Services, 182 A.D.2d 351, 582 N.Y.S.2d 667 (A.D. 1 Dept.1992); Metropolitan Medical Group v. Eaton, 154 A.D.2d 252, 546 N.Y.S.2d 90 (A.D. 1 Dept.1989). To be reasonable, an agreement not to compete must satisfy each of four conditions: "(1) the time and ......
  • Harris v. Patients Med., P.C., 8352N
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 de fevereiro de 2019
    ...interests. We find that irreparable harm is not established as monetary damages is an adequate remedy ( Metropolitan Med. Group, v. Eaton, 154 A.D.2d 252, 546 N.Y.S.2d 90 [1st Dept. 1989] ; see also Sterling Fifth Assoc. v. Carpentille Corp., 5 A.D.3d 328, 774 N.Y.S.2d 140 [1st Dept. 2004] ......
  • Genesis II Hair Replacement Studio, Ltd. v. Vallar
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 de junho de 1998
    ...127 A.D.2d 1007, 513 N.Y.S.2d 66; see, Merrell Benco Agency v. Safrin, 231 A.D.2d 614, 615, 647 N.Y.S.2d 952; Metropolitan Med. Group v. Eaton, 154 A.D.2d 252, 253, 546 N.Y.S.2d 90). Order unanimously affirmed with ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT