On March 28, 2024, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in L&M Pilates Brooklyn Mgmt, LLC v. Lerner, 2024 NY Slip Op. 50344(U), holding that a non-compete provision with no time limitation was unreasonable and thus unenforceable, explaining:
It is well established that a restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. In considering an employer’s legitimate interests, a court normally will not decree specific enforcement of an employee’s anticompetitive covenant 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.
Here, the subject non-compete provision has no temporal duration. Although plaintiff alleges that a one-year duration applies, the Agreement is clear that the one-year limitation is associated only with the non-solicitation. A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. Moreover, before commencement of the instant action, it is clear that plaintiff also viewed the Agreement’s non-compete language as suffering no time limitation, as evidenced by its articulated position in the cease-and-desist letter. As the non-compete clause is unlimited in duration, it is unenforceable.
With regard to the alleged breach of the non-solicitation, which is temporally limited, Lerner fails to establish that such claim must be dismissed. Lerner does not contend that the temporal limit is unreasonable. Rather, Lerner argues that plaintiff fails to articulate a legitimate business interest. However, plaintiff alleges a legitimate interest in the client relationships that Lerner acquired through her performance as a pilates instructor during the course of her employment with L&M. This is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).