Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' assertions, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their motion for a preliminary injunction which sought to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant Alan Dern dated August 29, 1991. It is well established that restrictive covenants contained in employment contracts that tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored in the law (see, Pezrow Corp. v Seifert, 197 A.D.2d 856; Shannon Stables Holding Co. v Bacon, 135 A.D.2d 804; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745). Such restrictive covenants will not be enforced "unless necessary to protect the trade secrets, customer lists or good will of the employer's business, or perhaps when the employer is exposed to special harm because of the unique nature of the employee's services" (American Broadcasting Cos. v Wolf, 52 N.Y.2d 394, 403; Tulchin Assocs. v Vignola, 186 A.D.2d 183; Altana, Inc. v Schansinger, 111 A.D.2d 199). In the absence of any showing that the above factors exist in this case, the plaintiffs clearly failed to show any likelihood of success on the merits, a necessary element for the granting of a preliminary injunction (see, Data Sys. Computer Centre v Tempesta, 171 A.D.2d 724; Independent Metal Strap Co. v Cohen, 96 A.D.2d 830).
Moreover, in view of the fact that the plaintiff corporation, with operations nationwide, may be made whole with a monetary award, while injunctive relief would effectively put the defendants out of business, the plaintiffs also failed to show irreparable injury or that the equities were in their favor (see, Busters Cleaning Corp. v Frati, 180 A.D.2d 705). Lawrence, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.