231 Conn. 272 (1994) | Cited 16 times | Supreme Court of Connecticut | October 18, 1994

These appeals challenge the validity of a trialcourt judgment awarding damages for a formeremployee's breach of a one year covenant not to compete

[231 Conn. 273]

     that was part of a written employment contract.The plaintiff, Van Dyck Printing Company, sued thedefendant, Anthony DiNicola, to recover for profits lostbecause the defendant, after leaving his employmentwith the plaintiff, joined another company to solicitbusiness in competition with the plaintiff in violationof an express covenant not to compete.1 The defendantdisputed the enforceability of the covenant not tocompete and filed a counterclaim to recover unpaidcommissions due to him from his former employmentby the plaintiff. The trial court rendered a judgmentin favor of the plaintiff on its complaint in the amountof $59,151.29 and in favor of the defendant on itscounterclaim in the amount of $4071.77.

The issues raised by the parties on appeal relate onlyto the trial court's judgment on the plaintiff's complaint.The defendant continues to contest the enforceabilityof the covenant not to compete. Both partiesdisagree in part with the trial court's assessment ofdamages. Although their appeals were properly filedin the Appellate Court, we transferred them to thiscourt pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and GeneralStatutes § 51-199(c).

Our examination of the record on this appeal and thebriefs and arguments of the parties persuades us thatthe judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Theparties do not dispute that the trial court applied theproper legal criteria in determining the enforceabilityof a covenant not to compete and in assessing the damagesthat flow from its breach. The application of thesecriteria to the factual circumstances of this case raisesissues that are largely factual and that were properlyresolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandumof decision filed by the trial court. See Van

[231 Conn. 274]

     Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Sup. 191,648 A.2d 898 (1993). Because that memorandum of decisionfully states and meets the arguments raised in thepresent appeals, we adopt the trial court's well reasoneddecision as a statement of the facts and the applicablelaw on these issues. It would serve no usefulpurpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v.Refuse Gardens, Inc., 229 Conn. 455, 458-59,642 A.2d 697 (1994); Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Dept.of Labor, 225 Conn. 99, 101-102, 622 A.2d 518 (1993);Loeb v. Al-Mor Corp., 224 Conn. 6, 7, 615 A.2d 149(1992).

The judgment is affirmed.

1. The plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief had become mootby the time of trial.

Back to top