This was originally published on the SGR Blog.
Would Court Enforce Restrictive Covenants?
ASAPP, Inc. applied to the Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining Samuel Rowbotham from commencing employment with or otherwise providing consulting services to ASAPP’s competitor, Cresta Intelligence, Inc., for a period of one year. Rowbotham opposed the motion.
Rowbotham served as a Director of Strategic Accounts at ASAPP, a technology company with approximately 300 employees whose software is designed to improve customer and employee experiences at call centers. ASAPP hired Rowbotham in April 2021, and he began work in May 2021.
This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.
Would Court Enforce Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants?
Mission Capital LLC d/b/a SBG Funding is a financial services firm that provides personalized financing solutions to small businesses. Jason Javich began working for SBG in February 2020 as an account executive and was employed as a manager at the time of his resignation about 18 months later. In addition to managing his own customers, Javich was also responsible for managing a team of seven account executives that worked under him. Javich oversaw the sales process for all of his team members. And SBG entrusted Javich with access to its proprietary client list database and other sensitive information.
Javich asserted that he joined SBG’s employ as an entry level funding broker and his work did not require any specialized abilities, training, education, or experience, and that, before he began working for SBG, his only full-time job had been as an administrative assistant in a radiologist’s office.
New York is a so-called “at will state” in which an employee without a contract for a definite term may be discharged at any time and/or without cause. Two recent decisions illustrate the apparent insurmountability of the “at will” employment doctrine. Continue reading
The Appellate Division, Third Department, recently issued decisions originating in Supreme Court, Saratoga County, one relating to the Workers’ Compensation Law and the other relating to a personal injury claim – that both had their origin from the riding of horses – and a third opinion, also originating in Supreme Court, Saratoga County, arising out of an automobile that was struck by a deer.
Carey v. Burton P. Schwab, 2014 NY Slip Op 08096 (decided on November 20, 2014) [Stein, J.]
The Court briefly summarized the facts:
[O]n May 24, 2008, defendant and two others rode three horses to a local tavern. While defendant — who was riding a horse he owned named Whiskey — was inside the tavern, Whiskey and another horse got loose from their restraints and took off. One of defendant’s companions went after the horses. Whiskey passed plaintiff and another individual, both of whom assisted defendant’s companion in trying to corral the horses. Whiskey was eventually restrained by defendant’s companion, who asked plaintiff to hold the reins. Plaintiff alleges that, as he was holding the reins, Whiskey head-butted him and stepped on him, causing plaintiff to lose consciousness and suffer injuries. Continue reading
[continued from Part I posted July 3, 2013]
Godoy v. FDR Services Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 30985[U] [Sup Ct, New York County 2013]
At the outset the Court noted that: “In this action, Plaintiff Richard Godoy, seeks, among other relief, a declaratory judgment declaring the parties’ Employment Agreement and the Restrictive Covenant contained therein unenforceable.”
“One Size Does Not Fit All”: Recent Decisions Highlight Claims and Defenses By and Against Departing Employees (Part I)
Two decisions by Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, both sitting in Suffolk County, released on the same day (April 11th) and appearing back-to-back on the Office of Court Administration website (on April 30th), and several other recent trial and appellate court opinions, separately and together present a CLE course on typical fact situations relating to departing employees and restrictive covenants, on the one hand, and the legally cognizable causes of action and the scope of relief and defenses available under such circumstances, on the other.