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.
SYSCO SYRACUSE, LLC, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. STUART EGAN, III, AND MAINES PAPER & FOOD SERVICE, INC., DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to enforce certain provisions of an employment agreement and thereafter moved for injunctive relief. Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction, which was effective until March 29, 2013, prohibiting defendant Stuart Egan, III from soliciting or assisting anyone else to solicit certain customers of plaintiff that Egan had serviced during the last year of his employment with plaintiff. Inasmuch as the challenged injunction has expired, we dismiss defendants' appeal as moot (see H. Meer Dental Supply Co. v Commisso, 269 A.D.2d 662, 663; see also Confidential Brokerage Servs., Inc. v Confidential Planning Corp., 85 AD3d 1268, 1270 n 2; Interface Solutions, Inc. v. Donoghue, 37 AD3d 1127, 1128). Contrary to defendants' contention, this case does not fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715). Defendants contend that the appeal is not moot because the issuance of the injunction “directly bears upon the matters at issue in the plenary action.” We reject that contention inasmuch as “ ‘[t]he granting or refusal of a temporary injunction does not constitute the law of the case or an adjudication on the merits' “ (Digitronics Inventioneering Corp. v Jameson, 11 AD3d 783, 784).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 12–02121
Decided: September 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)