Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sysco Syracuse, LLC v. Egan

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

September 27, 2013

SYSCO SYRACUSE, LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
STUART EGAN, III, AND MAINES PAPER & FOOD SERVICE, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered November 8, 2012. The order granted plaintiff 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 serviced during his last year of employment with plaintiff.

LAW FIRM OF FRANK W. MILLER, EAST SYRACUSE (JOHN A. SICKINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

CONNORS & VILARDO, LLP, BUFFALO (VINCENT E. DOYLE, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

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 A.D.3d 1268, 1270 n 2; Interface Solutions, Inc. v Donoghue, 37 A.D.3d 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 A.D.3d 783, 784).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.