The trial court's determinations, that defendants' services to plaintiff while in plaintiff's employ were of a special character and that information appropriated by defendants was confidential, were based on a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495), which included not only testimony supportive of the court's findings but also the stipulations in the governing agreements in which defendants acknowledged the special nature of their services and the confidentiality of the information at issue. The restrictions, which have already terminated as to two of the defendants, were reasonable under the circumstances ( see BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 388-389); they were reasonably designed for plaintiff's protection in light of defendants' establishment of a competing business, and the evidence of their egregious breach of trust and confidence in physically taking plaintiff's materials ( cf. Ruesch Intl. v. MacCormack, 222 A.D.2d 343). Feldman's disgorgement of compensation was appropriate in view of her incorporation, financing and acquisition of equipment for a business to compete with that of plaintiff while still in plaintiff's employ ( see CBS Corp. v. Dumsday, 268 A.D.2d 350, 353; Bon Temps Agency, Ltd. v. Greenfield, 212 A.D.2d 427, 428).
In the absence of a contractual provision authorizing the award of attorneys' fees, the reference was inappropriate, and we modify accordingly.
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.