R.P.I. SERVICES, INC. v. EISENBERG

Plaintiff's use of an assumed name, albeit that of a nonexistent corporation, in its nondisclosure agreements with the individual defendants, its former employees, did not vitiate such agreements ( see Mail Express Co. v. Parker Axles, Inc., 204 App Div 327 [1923]). We note that defendants do not claim to have been misled or prejudiced by the assumed name. The agreements were supported by consideration ( see Gazzola-Kraenzlin v. Westchester Med. Group, P.C., 10 AD3d 700, 702).