Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
DS COURIER SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lakram SEEBARRAN, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered May 25, 2006, which, in an action to enforce a restrictive covenant, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The subject restrictive covenant is contained in an agreement that describes defendant as an “independent contractor” and obligates him to “perform trucking services ․ as required and subject to change at any time” by plaintiff, a courier service. The contract does not provide for compensation, although it does require plaintiff to give defendant a 1099 tax form, and it appears that defendant was paid on a per item basis. The covenant prohibits defendant from negotiating directly or indirectly with any of six identified customers of plaintiff for a period of 120 days after termination of defendant's service, voluntary or otherwise. Such covenant “is, on its face, reasonably limited, both temporally and geographically, and not unduly burdensome,” and therefore prima facie enforceable (American Para Professional Sys. v. Examination Mgt. Servs., 214 A.D.2d 413, 414, 625 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1995] ). It does not avail defendant that his association with plaintiff did not involve use of trade secrets or confidential customer lists; the covenant legitimately protects the goodwill that plaintiff had developed with certain of its customers (see Scott, Stackrow & Co., CPA's, P.C. v. Skavina, 9 A.D.3d 805, 806, 780 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 612, 788 N.Y.S.2d 667, 821 N.E.2d 972 [2004] ). We also reject defendant's argument that the covenant is not enforceable because it is contained in a contract that imposes no obligations on plaintiff. It appears that although not obligated to do so, plaintiff did in fact utilize defendant's services, triggering an implied obligation to compensate and an express obligation to provide a 1099 tax form. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 03, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)