STICKY HOLDINGS LLC v. ABRAHAMIAN (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered January 13, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the nondisparagement clause of the termination agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined that questions of fact barred summary resolution of this matter in defendant's favor (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]).  Plaintiff points to statements made by defendant, including, as described by an investor, excessive and belligerent texts received from defendant that criticized board members and stated that the business was not performing well because of their management.  Thus, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant breached the nondisparagement clause in the parties' termination agreement (see Smolev v Carole Hochman Design Grp., Inc., 79 AD3d 540 [1st Dept 2010]).