First, these covenants do not contain any limitation as to area or geography, as they either apply to the entire country, as plaintiff asserts in its reply, or more restrictively, worldwide (Yedlin, 102 AD3d at 770 [where restrictive covenant applied to entire United States and precluded plaintiff/employee from participating in projects that involved defendants/employers' present or former clients, restrictive covenant was unenforceable]). Second, these covenants prohibit Yoo from working in any business tangentially related to plaintiff, providing that Yoo, post-employment, may not "engage or participate in any business that is in competition in any manner whatsoever with [plaintiff]" (id; compare TSIG Consulting, Inc. v ACP Consulting LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 32232 [U], *13 [Sup Ct, New York County 2014] [non-solicit covenant prevented former employees from diverting sales and/or business offered or performed by plaintiff from plaintiff and prohibited employees from soliciting any of plaintiff's customers identified by plaintiff to employees as potential customers or companies identified by plaintiff to employees as customers, including but not limited to those solicited by employees or with whom employees became acquainted while working for plaintiff] [emphasis added]). Moreover, these covenants are blanket provisions which do not distinguish between merchants which Yoo obtained by developing and cultivating business relationships prior to working for plaintiff and those merchants which Yoo obtained by virtue of working for plaintiff (TSIG Consulting, Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 32232 [U], *12]).