(“An employee may be prevented under his negative covenant from revealing trade secrets even where the term of employment is at will, and has not been fixed for a definite period.”). A claim of tortious interference with a non-compete clause would not have to allege wrongful means if the new employer was aware of the clause and assisted or encouraged the employer to violate it to its 'benefit. Cf. Lockheed Martin Corp., 725 N.Y.S.2d at 725 (stating that the wrongful means standard applies when “the allegations concern at-will employees not bound by covenants not to compete”). The Contract specifies that Barbagallo was an at-will employee. Contract Sec. 2.1; see also Wright v. Cayan, 817 F.2d 999, 1002 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 853, 108 S.Ct. 157, 98 L.Ed.2d 112 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Sabetay v. Sterling Drug. Inc., 69 N.Y.2d
holding that offer of atwill employment is valid consideration to support an arbitration agreement holding that under arkansas law employment is atwill unless personnel manual or employment agreement contains express provision that employee shall not be discharged except for cause holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will