The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled on July 24, 2026, in a significant contract dispute involving Armbruster Capital Management, Inc. and Elizabeth Barrett, along with her company, Apex Wealth Advisers, LLC. The court's decision affects the parties involved in the case, particularly regarding the enforceability of certain contract terms. This ruling is important as it clarifies how courts may interpret contract disputes involving restrictive covenants.
Armbruster Capital Management, Inc. (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Elizabeth Barrett and Apex Wealth Advisers, LLC (the defendants) over a breach of contract. The case arose from an asset purchase agreement that included restrictive covenants intended to protect the interests of the parties involved. The dispute centers on whether the defendants violated these covenants and if such a breach was substantial enough to justify the plaintiff's claims.
The case was initially heard in Monroe County, where the Supreme Court ruled on November 19, 2024. The court denied Armbruster's motion for partial summary judgment, which sought to establish liability for the breach of contract. The defendants also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which was partially denied. This led to both parties appealing the decision, resulting in the current ruling from the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that there were unresolved questions of fact regarding the enforceability of the restrictive covenants in the asset purchase agreement. The court stated, "Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met its initial burden, we conclude that defendants raised questions of fact concerning the enforceability of the restrictive covenants." This indicates that the court found merit in the defendants' arguments, suggesting that the case is not as clear-cut as the plaintiff had hoped.
Judge Lindley, along with Justices Curran, Ogden, Delconte, and Hannah, participated in the ruling. The court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the facts presented by both parties and emphasizes the importance of clarity in contractual agreements.
The ruling has significant implications for both parties. For Armbruster Capital Management, the decision means that they cannot obtain a quick resolution in their favor and must continue to litigate the case. For Barrett and Apex Wealth Advisers, the ruling allows them to challenge the plaintiff's claims regarding the breach of contract. This case highlights the complexities of contract law, especially when it comes to restrictive covenants, which are often used to protect business interests.
Looking ahead, the case may continue to unfold in the lower courts as both parties seek to resolve the remaining factual questions. The Appellate Division's ruling does not preclude further appeals, and it remains to be seen whether either party will pursue additional legal action. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.