LEGAL MEMORANDUM
- To
- Litigation Team
- From
- J. Rivera
- Re
- Northstar Mobility — restrictive covenant
- Date
- September 21, 2026
Question Presented
Whether the twenty-four-month nationwide non-compete in § 8.2 is enforceable under New York law where Northstar relies on general customer relationships rather than trade secrets or unique services.
Brief Answer
Likely not as written. New York enforces a restrictive covenant only to the extent it protects a legitimate employer interest, imposes no undue hardship, and is not injurious to the public.
Discussion
I. The covenant exceeds what is necessary to protect a legitimate interest.
A restraint aimed at ordinary competition is disfavored. Northstar must connect the restriction to trade secrets, confidential information, unique services, or protectable client relationships—not simply the loss of an employee to a competitor.
The agreement reaches every competing business in the United States for two years, regardless of the employee's role or prior customer contact. That breadth is materially disconnected from the limited interests New York recognizes.AI SUGGESTION
II. The restriction imposes substantial hardship.
Section 8.2 prevents work across an entire national industry rather than limiting solicitation of identified customers. The duration and geographic reach therefore strengthen the argument against enforcement.
[1] BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 388–89 (1999).
[2] Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 307–08 (1976).
[3] Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364, 370–71 (2015).