You are here: / / NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT...
,

NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court correctly found, after a bench trial, that a non-solicitation agreement between defendant Johnson and her employers (plaintiffs) should not be enforced because the agreement was the product of overreaching:

​

Plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that, in imposing the terms of the non-solicitation covenant, they did not engage in “overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, but ha[d] in good faith sought to protect a legitimate interest” … , and they did not meet that burden. The evidence established that the non-solicitation covenant was imposed as a condition of Johnson’s employment, after she had left her former employer and her position there had been filled, which belies plaintiffs’ contention that Johnson’s bargaining position was equal or superior to theirs… . In addition, plaintiffs required all employees, regardless of position, to sign an agreement containing a non-solicitation covenant as a condition of employment, which undercuts plaintiffs’ contention that the covenant was necessary to protect their legitimate business interests … . Finally, the fact that the agreement provides for partial enforcement of the non-solicitation covenant, which is clearly over-broad under New York law, casts doubt on plaintiffs’ good faith in imposing the covenant on Johnson … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00728, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED A VIABLE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE, ERROR IS A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 BECAUSE THE VINEYARD WAS “SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE” (FOURTH DEPT).
TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE TOWN DEFENDANTS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE EITHER THAT THEY WERE NOT NEGLIGENT OR THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; BY FOCUSING ONLY ON PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE TOWN DEFENDANTS EFFECTIVELY ASSUMED THEY WERE NEGLIGENT; THE EVIDENCE THE DRIVER OF THE TOWN DUMP TRUCK WAS TRAVELING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TOWN’S FAVOR (FOURTH DEPT).
BANK’S MANAGER WAS AWARE OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.
TWO ATTACKS MINUTES APART CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT INSURER BREACHED THE INSURANCE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE COVERAGE; THAT ALLEGATION DOES NOT SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Defendant Under Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS... PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH...