Opinion
June 10, 1998
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Injunction.
Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendant from breaching the terms of restrictive covenants in her employment contract. Defendant was hired by plaintiff in 1989 as a licensed beautician. In September 1997 defendant left plaintiffs employ and opened a hair salon specializing in hair loss treatment. Plaintiff contends that defendant's operation of a similar business within 50 miles of plaintiffs studio in North Syracuse violates defendant's employment contract.
"[R]estrictive 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, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 83 N.Y.2d 798). Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that enforcement of defendant's employment contract is "necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential customer lists or good will" ( Briskin v. All Seasons Servs., 206 A.D.2d 906) or that defendant's services were "unique or extraordinary" ( Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 308, rearg denied 40 N.Y.2d 918; Newco Waste Sys. v. Swartzenberg, 125 A.D.2d 1004, 1005). Plaintiffs allegation that defendant is attempting to solicit plaintiffs customers is conclusory, with no evidentiary detail ( see, Holdsworth v. Doherty, 231 A.D.2d 930; Faberge Intl. v. Di Pino, 109 A.D.2d 235, 240). In addition, "[t]he conclusory allegations of plaintiff in support of its application do not establish that irreparable harm will result in the absence of injunctive relief" ( Merola v. Telonis, 127 A.D.2d 1007; see, Merrell Benco Agency v. Safrin, 231 A.D.2d 614, 615; Metropolitan Med. Group v. Eaton, 154 A.D.2d 252, 253).