
    New York Wet Wash Laundry Company, Appellant, v. Morris Unger, Respondent.
    First Department,
    December 30, 1915.
    Master and servant — breach of agreement not to work for employer’s competitors — injunction pendente lite.
    A person employed to procure customers for the plaintiff who agreed not to accept similar employment in a certain locality for one year, but who, in violation of the agreement, entered into the service of a competitor of the plaintiff and solicited the plaintiff’s customers for the competitor, will be enjoined pendente lite from soliciting the business of any person who was the plaintiff’s customer while he was in its employ.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, New York Wet Wash Laundry Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of November, 1915, denying its motion to continue an in j -auction pendente lite.
    
    
      Louis Boehm, for the appellant.
    
      John Mithertz, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

Defendant was formerly employed to procure customers for the plaintiff, for which he was paid compensation. The evidence fairly establishes that employment was for six months, with an agreement not to engage in plaintiff’s business in the borough of Manhattan for a year in any other service. Without apparent cause defendant left plaintiff’s service, and is now engaged in collecting wash and soliciting customers for a rival concern, and has succeeded in taking from the plaintiff a number of its customers to its rival. The action is brought to restrain the defendant from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers for its rival, and to restrain him from engaging in the wet wash business for the period of a year, according to his contract. The order appealed from denied a temporary injunction. That order should be reversed, and the defendant should be enjoined during the pendency of the action from soliciting or collecting wash from any person who was a customer of the plaintiff while defendant was in its employ. (Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Prigge, 112 App. Div. 652; Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Heldt, 120 id. 795; Reynolds Co. v. Dreyer, 12 Misc. Rep. 368; Hackett v. Reynolds Co., 30 id. 733; Davies v. Racer, 72 Hun, 43; Magnolia Metal Co. v. Price, 65 App. Div. 276.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Smith, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Order to be settled on notice.  