Law School Case Briefs
Start by searching for a case name or citation above.
Discover a Random Brief
BDO SEIDMAN v. HIRSHBERG
Court of Appeals of the State of New York (1999) | 93 N.Y.2d 382; 712 N.E.2d 1220; 690 N.Y.S.2d 854
TL;DR: An accounting firm sued a former employee to enforce a reimbursement clause for serving firm clients. The court found the clause overbroad but, instead of voiding it, partially enforced it to protect the firm's legitimate interests, remanding on the issue of liquidated damages.
Legal Significance: Establishes that New York courts will partially enforce overbroad employee restrictive covenants if the employer acted in good faith. It narrowly defines an employer's legitimate protectable interest as client relationships cultivated through the employer's resources, not the entire client base or the employee's personal clients.