Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola
| Citation | 648 A.2d 877,231 Conn. 272 |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 15005,15005 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | VAN DYCK PRINTING COMPANY v. Anthony F. DiNICOLA. |
Gordon A. Evans, New Haven, for appellant-appellee (defendant).
F. Herbert Gruendel, New Haven, for appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
These appeals challenge the validity of a trial court judgment awarding damages for a former employee's breach of a one year covenant not to compete that was part of a written employment contract. The plaintiff, Van Dyck Printing Company, sued the defendant, Anthony DiNicola, to recover for profits lost because the defendant, after leaving his employment with the plaintiff, joined another company to solicit business in competition with the plaintiff in violation of an express covenant not to compete. 1 The defendant disputed the enforceability of the covenant not to compete and filed a counterclaim to recover unpaid commissions due to him from his former employment by the plaintiff. The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its complaint in the amount of $59,151.29 and in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim in the amount of $4071.77.
The issues raised by the parties on appeal relate only to the trial court's judgment on the plaintiff's complaint. The defendant continues to contest the enforceability of the covenant not to compete. Both parties disagree in part with the trial court's assessment of damages. Although their appeals were properly filed in the Appellate Court, we transferred them to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c).
Our examination of the record on this appeal and the briefs and arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The parties do not dispute that the trial court applied the proper legal criteria in determining the enforceability of a covenant not to compete and in assessing the damages that flow from its breach. The application of these criteria to the factual circumstances of this case raises issues that are largely factual and that were properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court. See Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Sup. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993). Because that memorandum of decision fully states and meets the arguments raised in the present appeals, we adopt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schimenti Constr. Co. v. Schimenti
...Superior Court cases have cited Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola , 43 Conn. Supp. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994) ( Van Dyck ), or Dick v. Dick , 167 Conn. 210, 355 A.2d 110 (1974), to support the proposition that continued employment is inadequate consi......
-
Beacon Insurance & Investment Group, LLC v. Panzo
...might be reasonable for a longer time." Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Supp. 191, 197, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994) restriction throughout Connecticut found reasonable in light of subsequent conditions in the agreement). In Robert S. Weiss & Ass......
-
DelVecchio Reporting Services, LLC v. Edwards
...to the terms prior to employment, and alternatively finding enhanced commission rate constituted new consideration), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994); Russo Assocs., v. Cachina, No. 27 69 10, 1995 WL 94589, *3 (Conn.Super.CT. Mar. 1, 1995) (holding that where " the preexisting cont......
-
Sartor v. Town of Manchester
...93387 at *7 (Conn.Super. Feb. 22, 1995); Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Supp. 191, 196, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994). The Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the contract is supported by consideration.......