From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hair Studio 441, Inc. v. Boccone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 27, 2013
104 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-03-27

HAIR STUDIO 441, INC., et al., appellants-respondents, v. Mario BOCCONE, respondent-appellant, Sidney Lamm, also known as Sid Lamm, respondent.

Mehler & Buscemi, New York, N.Y. (Francis R. Buscemi of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.


Mehler & Buscemi, New York, N.Y. (Francis R. Buscemi of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
Barry S. Seidel, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for breach of a covenant not to compete, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered April 11, 2012, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, granted the motion of the defendant Sidney Lamm, also known as Sid Lamm, incorrectly treated by the Supreme Court as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and the defendant Mario Boccone cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as, in effect, denied his motion, incorrectly treated by the Supreme Court as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, and the motion of the defendant Mario Boccone for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Mario Boccone, payable by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for breach of a covenant not to compete contained in an agreement of sale. The defendant Mario Boccone and the defendant Sidney Lamm, also known as Sid Lamm, separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint, in effect, denied Boccone's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which the Supreme Court characterized as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, and, in effect, granted Lamm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which the Supreme Court also characterized as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs appeal, and Boccone cross-appeals.

We note that since Boccone and Lamm moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, citing to CPLR 3212, the Supreme Court incorrectly treated the motions as having been made pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Boccone and Lamm met their respective prima facie burdens of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they did not breach the covenant not to compete contained in the agreement of sale ( see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;cf. Indotronix Intl. Corp. v. Ayyala, 67 A.D.3d 643, 644–645, 888 N.Y.S.2d 170;Kimble v. Dell Broadcasting Corp., 188 A.D.2d 1035, 592 N.Y.S.2d 195). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

We need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions in light of our determination.

BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN, and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hair Studio 441, Inc. v. Boccone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 27, 2013
104 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Hair Studio 441, Inc. v. Boccone

Case Details

Full title:HAIR STUDIO 441, INC., et al., appellants-respondents, v. Mario BOCCONE…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 27, 2013

Citations

104 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
963 N.Y.S.2d 586
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2052

Citing Cases

Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. v. Niagara Falls Mall, Inc.

The parties thereafter stipulated to have the value of the property determined by three appraisers, as…