Opinion
February 26, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To prevail upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that (1) there is a likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of the action, (2) it will suffer irreparable injury absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and (3) the balance of equities is in its favor (see, CPLR 6301; Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496). When the facts are sharply disputed, a preliminary injunction will not be granted (see, Price Paper Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 A.D.2d 748; Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745, 747).
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, supra). 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 a showing that any of the above factors exist in this case, the plaintiff failed to show a 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). Thompson, J.P., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.