In BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382 (1999) the court identified certain "facts and circumstances which militated in favor of partial enforcement," including that; (1) "the covenant was not imposed as a condition of defendant's initial employment, or even his continued employment, but in connection with promotion to a position of responsibility and trust just one step below admittance to the partnership"; (2) "there was no evidence of coercion or . . . of some general plan to forestall competition"; (3) there was "no proof . . . that BDO imposed the covenant in bad faith, knowing full well that it was overbroad." (BDO, 93 NY2d at 395.)