Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion for a preliminary injunction, the burden of proof is on the movant to show that success on the merits is likely in the action, that irreparable injury will occur unless the injunction is granted, and that the balance of equities is in the movant's favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496; Koursiaris v Astoria N. Dev., 143 A.D.2d 639; Barone v Frie, 99 A.D.2d 129). In applying these principles to the instant case, it is clear that the court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (see, County of Orange v Lockey, 111 A.D.2d 896, 897).
It is well established that in the absence of a restrictive covenant not to compete, "an employee is free to compete with his or her former employer unless trade secrets are involved or fraudulent methods are employed" (Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 137 A.D.2d 22, 27; also, Zurich Depository Corp. v Gilenson, 121 A.D.2d 443, 444; Catalogue Serv. v Henry, 107 A.D.2d 783, 784).
Here, the plaintiff's moving papers failed to show that its customer lists were of such a nature that they were entitled to trade-secret protection. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to clearly establish that the defendants were utilizing protected proprietary information or that the defendant Kevin Cavanagh had misappropriated the plaintiff's property or copied the plaintiff's customer lists. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction (see, Walter Karl, Inc. v Woods, supra; Catalogue Serv. v Henry, supra).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.