From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eastern Air Devices, Inc. v. Gaites

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1953
281 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion

January 19, 1953.


Action to recover damages and for an injunction to restrain unfair competition. Eastern Air Devices, Inc., plaintiff in action No. 1, appeals from so much of an order as grants defendants leave to reargue their motion to dismiss for insufficiency the third and fourth causes of action and as grants defendants' motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action. Defendants appeal from so much of the order as denies their motion on reargument to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action and as denies their motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action. Order modified on the law by striking from the second ordering paragraph the word "denied" and by substituting in lieu thereof the word "granted". As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. The mere fact that the individual defendants were former officers, directors and stockholders does not require them to refrain from inducing employees of the plaintiff, not bound by a contract for a definite term, to enter their employ. ( Coleman Morris v. Pisciotta, 279 App. Div. 656.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Eastern Air Devices, Inc. v. Gaites

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1953
281 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Eastern Air Devices, Inc. v. Gaites

Case Details

Full title:EASTERN AIR DEVICES, INC., Respondent-Appellant, v. JAMES C. GAITES et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 19, 1953

Citations

281 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Citing Cases

R. Sys. Prog. v. Computer Assistance

Nor do I quarrel with the general rule that in the ordinary case an employee may make plans to compete with…

Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen

None of the authorities relied upon by defendants is inconsistent with the conclusion we reach herein. We…