BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that an employer may have a legitimate interest in protecting client relationships independent from its interest in an employee’s unique services
• deciding validity of a restrictive covenant on a motion for summary judgment
• articulating the “prevailing standard of reasonableness” applied by New York courts in determining the validity of non-competes and non- solicitation restrictions
• applying restrictive covenants to protect “against misappropriation of the employer’s trade secrets or of confidential customer lists, or protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary”
• stating that the plaintiff did not have a reasonable interest in extending a restrictive covenant to “personal clients of defendant who came to the firm solely to avail themselves of his services and only as a result of his own independent recruitment efforts”
• noting 1 The parties agree that New York law governs the contract claims in this case and Texas law applies to BMC’s common law and statutory trade secrets claims. Dkt. 612 (joint pretrial order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).