Preliminary Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenants Granted

Posted: April 6, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Breach of Contract, Injunction

Preliminary Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenants Granted

On March 2, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-compete and non-solicitation restrictive covenants in plaintiff’s operating agreement against a member, Shravan Reddy, and his co-defendant company, AplihsMD. The case is Excelusmle Review LLC v. Reddy, Shravan, Index No. 654449/2025.

Plaintiff Excelusmle provides international and domestic medical school graduates with U.S. medical residency match preparation. Defendant Shravan Reddy was a member of Excelusmle until he left in April 2025 to start his own competing business, co-defendant AplihsMD. Reddy rejoined Excelusmle and signed the restrictive covenants in June 2024, and resigned from Excelusmle in April 2025. After reviewing the covenants and noting that it had already issued a temporary restraining order against their violation, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, explaining:

Dr. Reddy admitted in his Affirmation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 55) that, after the TRO was issued on September 5, 2025, the Defendants provided services to, and accepted payments from, approximately 43 medical students that had sought AplihsMD’s services (id. ¶¶ 19-21, 27, n 3), in violation of the non-compete covenant. The wholesale departure of Excel’s contractors to AplihsMD soon after Dr. Reddy’s departure indicates that Dr. Reddy solicited their departure from Excel, in violation of the non-solicitation covenant. Thus, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits on their breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The Plaintiffs have also demonstrated a danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The Defendants are alleged to have misappropriated all the assets, personnel, and relationships of Excel, effectively misappropriating the entire joint venture, and Dr. Reddy’s

admitted operation of AplihsMD damages Excel by diluting the value of its goodwill in a way that is irreparable.

Finally, the balance of the equities favors the injunction because, as discussed, Mr. Reddy admitted to providing services to several medical students after the TRO was granted, in violation of the TRO.

Slip op., p. 7.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning non-compete/non-solicitation covenants or preliminary injunctive relief.