Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind
| Decision Date | 25 June 1958 |
| Citation | 151 N.E.2d 609,4 N.Y.2d 393,175 N.Y.S.2d 809 |
| Parties | , 151 N.E.2d 609 PARAMOUNT PAD CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Hyman BAUMRIND et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Irving Levine, New York City, for appellant.
Orrin G. Judd, Christopher J. Taylor and Harold J. Reynolds, New York City, for Maurice Uchitel and another, respondents.
Morris J. Junger and Charles E. McGuinness, New York City, for Hyman Baumrind, respondent.
The amended complaint of Paramount Pad Co., Inc., alleged two causes of action; one against defendant Baumrind for breach of contract, the other against Easter Shoulder Pad Corp. and its president, for inducing the breach, seeking damages in the amount of $75,000 against the defendants in each cause of action.
The contract provides that Baumrind, who had left the employ of Paramount six months prior to the execution of the agreement, would not solicit as a salesman, directly or indirectly, Paramount's customers for a period of three years in consideration of the payment to him of the sum of $3,000. It further provides that Baumrind would not divulge the names of Paramount's customers. Lastly, it provides that Baumrind must obtain the written permission of Paramount before he could accept any position in the shoulder pad industry.
The restrictions set forth in the agreement exceed the degree of protection to which Paramount was entitled in order to preserve its legitimate interests. On its face the agreement unreasonably prevents the former employee, Baumrind, from pursuing his occupation where no harm would come to Paramount. Where the restraint imposed is more extensive than the legitimate interests sought to be protected, the restraint is invalid. Absent a breach of confidence, an employer cannot exact from a former employee an agreement to refrain from putting to use the experience gained while working at his trade. Kaumagraph Co. v. Stampagraph Co., 235 N.Y. 1, 9, 138 N.E. 485, 487; Clark Paper & Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312, 320, 140 N.E. 708, 711, 29 A.L.R. 1325; cf. Lynch v. Bailey, 300 N.Y. 615, 90 N.E.2d 484.
This contract is contrary to the public policy of the State (General Business Law, Consol.Laws, c. 20, § 340). Hence an action may not be maintained for its breach, nor for inducing its breach.
In order to appeal as of right plaintiff had a judgment absolute entered waiving the Appellate Division's modification. Since the restraint in the contract here extends far beyond the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucente v. Intern. Business Machines Corp.
...exactly the kind of information that cannot be restricted through a covenant not to compete. See Paramount Pad Co., v. Baumrind, 4 N.Y.2d 393, 397, 175 N.Y.S.2d 809, 151 N.E.2d 609 (1958); Reed Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 309, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 680-81, 353 N.E.2d 59......
-
In re Hirschhorn
...The Debtor relies solely on Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 A.D.2d 944, 168 N.Y.S.2d 215, 216 (1957), aff'd, 4 N.Y.2d 393, 175 N.Y.S.2d 809, 151 N.E.2d 609 (1958), for the proposition that the noncompete clause is unenforceable as it is not ancillary to either a contract for the sale of a ......
-
Chenault v. Otis Engineering Corp., 380
...Ohio Com.Pl., 105 N.E.2d 685, 695; Bond Electric Corporation v. Keller, 113 N.J.Eq. 195, 166 A. 341; Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 N.Y.2d 393, 175 N.Y.S.2d 809, 151 N.E.2d 609; Rabinowitz v. Tillman, 19 Misc.2d 1094, 192 N.Y.S.2d Neither the quote from C.J.S. nor any of these cited autho......
-
Bradford v. New York Times Co.
...the rule of reason approach, whether the action is based on common law or Donnelly Act grounds. See Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 N.Y.2d 393, 175 N.Y.S.2d 809, 151 N.E.2d 2d 609 (1958). In sum, we find the agreement fair and reasonable under the law of New III The appellant argues that t......