Opinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion, brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), insofar as it sought dismissal of the second cause of action alleging that David G. Post breached his covenant to preserve the confidentiality of customer information, pricing policies and manufacturing processes. Although covenants that tend to prevent employees from pursuing similar employment upon termination or retirement are disfavored by the law (Columbia Ribbon Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499; Briskin v All Seasons Servs., 206 A.D.2d 906), reasonable restrictions related to the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer information will be enforced (American Broadcasting Cos. v Wolf, 52 N.Y.2d 394, 403-404; Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 A.D.2d 1115, 1116). Assuming, as we must, the truth of the allegations in the complaint and statements in the affidavits submitted by plaintiff (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88), we conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that its customer information, pricing policies, and manufacturing processes are not publicly known nor ascertainable from sources outside the company; that Post acquired knowledge of those confidences while employed with plaintiff; and that, while employed with plaintiff, Post misappropriated that information and used it to the benefit of a competitor of plaintiff in violation of the non-disclosure provision of his contract of employment (see, Ward v Arcade Bldg. Maintenance, 191 A.D.2d 368; Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Auto Sound Sys., 182 A.D.2d 1119).
The court also properly denied defendants' motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the sixth cause of action alleging that Florida Glove, Inc., intentionally interfered with Post's employment relationship with plaintiff by inducing Post to violate the covenant restricting disclosure of confidential information acquired while working for plaintiff (see, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183; A.S. Rampell, Inc. v Hyster Co., 3 N.Y.2d 369).
Defendants concede that the remaining issue raised on appeal has been rendered moot by amendment of the complaint.