On August 9, 2024, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Amtrust N. Am., Inc. v. Bozzomo, 2024 NY Slip Op. 32803(U), holding that a non-compete provision that prevented an employee from working in an industry was unenforceable, explaining:
A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public. Bozzomo asserts the provision here is unreasonable because it contains no geographic limitation and prevents Bozzomo from working in the title insurance industry in any capacity. The absence of a geographic limitation is not unreasonable since plaintiff claims to do business nationally. Nationwide restrictions are not per se invalid, as defendants argue. However, paragraphs 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(g) and 1(h) of the Non-Competition Agreement when read together with paragraph 5(b) prevent Bozzomo from any employment in the title insurance field. Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored by the law. The court rejects plaintiffs’ argument, unsupported by any legal authority, that the court cannot dismiss this claim at the motion to dismiss stage. Where appropriate, courts can resolve the issue of whether a noncom petition clause is enforceable at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiff’s restriction would even bar Bozzomo from working as an attorney in the title insurance industry even though he is not employed as an attorney by plaintiffs.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).