From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lund v. Agmata Washington Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.).


Although defendant Nicholas Grammatas signed the document assuming the terms of the security agreement on behalf of defendant corporation in his representative capacity as its president, he was the sole shareholder and officer and is therefore bound personally by the restrictive covenant set forth in the rider to the security agreement (see, Spilky v Atkin, 120 A.D.2d 581, 582, citing Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 N.Y.2d 48, 56). Plaintiffs have shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction, since the claim is based on the sale of a business and accompanying goodwill, defendant's violation of the covenant establishes irreparable injury (see, Hay Group v Nadel, 170 A.D.2d 398, 399), and his seeking out a nearby location within the restricted area while the business protected by the covenant was still operating balances the equities in plaintiffs' favor.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Lund v. Agmata Washington Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Lund v. Agmata Washington Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JUDITH A. LUND, as Executor of CHARLES E. LUND, Deceased, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
503 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

Misys Intl. Banking Sys. v. TwoFour Sys., LLC

Will this conduct, if not enjoined, result in irreparable injury? (a) With regard to the breach of the…

D&A Woodlands Enter., Inc. v. Sinatra

The evidence of defendant's breach was of sufficient strength to warrant a finding that plaintiff was likely…