In view of the well-established considerations for enforcement of restrictive employment covenants (see, Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co., 91 A.D.2d 398, 400-401 [2d Dept 1983]), the defendants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would preclude summary judgment. There was no showing that the plaintiff employee is in possession of any trade secrets or other confidential information not available to the public at large. (Primo Enter. v. Bachner, 148 A.D.2d 350, 352 [1st Dept 1989].) Nor was there a showing that the plaintiff employee's services were unique or extraordinary to an extent that would "make his replacement impossible or that the loss of such services would cause the employer irreparable injury." (Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 N.Y.2d 267, 274.) In addition, as the IAS court noted, there is no showing by defendants that under these circumstances, a restrictive covenant, the geographic scope of which encompasses the entire world, is reasonable. We have reviewed defendants' remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.