Opinion
June 15, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The language of the employment contract in question applied, on its face, only to life and health insurance and not to the casualty accounts which are the subject of this action.
In any event, the plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proving that the noncompetition covenant contained in the agreement was reasonable in scope and duration or that it was necessary to protect its legitimate needs while not unduly burdening the former employee (see, Weintraub v Schwartz, 131 A.D.2d 663 [decided herewith]; Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co., 91 A.D.2d 398).
Moreover, on this record, it would appear that the nonsolicitation covenant may be unenforceable since the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the alleged customer list constituted a trade secret or that the defendant salesman Kiepler's services were unique (see, American Broadcast Cos. v Wolf, 52 N.Y.2d 394; Columbia Ribbon Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496; Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, rearg denied 40 N.Y.2d 918). Customer lists in the commercial insurance industry are not confidential (Reidman Agency v Musnicki, 79 A.D.2d 1094), nor are the functions of an insurance agent extraordinary or unique (Cool Insuring Agency v Rogers, 125 A.D.2d 758).
Further, the motion for a preliminary injunction was also properly denied since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a balancing of the equities was in its favor (see, Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co., supra; Cool Insuring Agency v Rogers, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.