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
NO SHOWING RUG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT FLUSH TO THE FLOOR, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT SUSPENDED MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS; THE PAYMENTS WERE GOVERNED BY THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval Ruling and Required Reversal.
FALL WHILE UNLOADING A FLATBED TRUCK CAN BE A COVERED ACTIVITY AND INVOLVED AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK; INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION FIRST ASSERTED IN OPPOSITION PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY FAILING TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT IT INTENDED TO ASSESS POINTS IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OR PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE; NEW HEARING ORDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

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...