Summary
finding a restrictive covenant not to compete to be unenforceable because “[d]efendant's position as an epoxy rig operator is not highly compensated and requires no unique skills or specialized training. Defendant thus is not a ‘unique' or ‘irreplaceable' employee whose departure caused plaintiff special harm. Similarly, defendant was not shown to have knowledge of trade secrets or to have threatened disclosure of such secrets to his new employer to plaintiff's disadvantage.”
Summary of this case from AWP, Inc. v. Safe Zone Servs., LlcOpinion
204 A.D.2d 1054 612 N.Y.S.2d 533 ACCENT STRIPE, INC., Appellant, v. Douglas TAYLOR, Respondent. Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department May 27, 1994.
Walshs&s Fleming, P.C. by Andrew Fleming, Blasdell, for appellant.
Diebolds&s Farmello, P.C. by Craig Miller, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in this action to enforce the "Secrecy, Noncompetition and Invention Agreement" entered into between plaintiff and defendant, its former employee. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, irreparable injury if injunctive relief were not granted, and a balancing of the equities in its favor (see, Newco Waste Sys. v. Swartzenberg, 125 A.D.2d 1004, 1005, 510 N.Y.S.2d 399; Watmet, Inc. v. Robinson, 116 A.D.2d 998, 999, 498 N.Y.S.2d 619). "It is well established that restrictive covenants contained in employment contracts that tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination are disfavored in the law" (Pezrow Corp. v. Seifert, 197 A.D.2d 856, 602 N.Y.S.2d 468, appeal dismissed and lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 798, 611 N.Y.S.2d 130, 633 N.E.2d 485, citing Columbia Ribbon s&sCarbon Mfg. Co. v. A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 369 N.E.2d 4). 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' " (Pezrow Corp. v. Seifert, supra, 197 A.D.2d at 856-857, 602 N.Y.S.2d 468, quoting American Broadcasting Cos. v. Wolf, 52 N.Y.2d 394, 403, 438 N.Y.S.2d 482, 420 N.E.2d 363). "[I]t is the utilization of confidential information constituting a breach of trust, and not the mere knowledge of a business's intricacies, which is prohibited" (Newco Waste Sys. v. Swartzenberg, supra). "[A]bsent any wrongdoing * * * [an employee] should [not] be prohibited from utilizing his knowledge and talents in [his] area [of expertise]" (Reed, Roberts Assoc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 309, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 353 N.E.2d 590, rearg. denied 40 N.Y.2d 918, 389 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 357 N.E.2d 1033).
Defendant's position as an epoxy rig operator is not highly compensated and requires no unique skills or specialized training. Defendant thus is not a "unique" or "irreplaceable" employee whose departure caused plaintiff special harm (see, Newco Waste Sys. v. Swartzenberg, supra, 125 A.D.2d at 1005, 510 N.Y.S.2d 399). Similarly, defendant was not shown to have knowledge of trade secrets or to have threatened disclosure of such secrets to his new employer to plaintiff's disadvantage.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.