With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Here, the non-compete provision is clearly unreasonable in terms of duration and geographic scope. Indeed, Plaintiffs have conceded that the ten-year prohibition is overly broad in terms of duration, and courts have consistently held non-compete provisions of this duration unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable. See, e.g., Baker’s Aid, a Div. of M. Raubvogel Co., Inc. v. Hussmann Foodservice Co., 730 F.Supp. 1209, 1216 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (concluding that a covenant not to compete for a period of ten years was unenforceable because it was overbroad and not reasonably necessary to prevent the disclosure of the plaintiffs proprietary information or the misuse of the plaintiffs plans and specifications); see also Todd Chem. Co. v. Di Stefano, 30 A.D.2d 879, 292 N.Y.S.2d 811 (2d Dep’t 1968) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the non-compete provision does

A: holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration
B: holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy
C: holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable
D: holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
D.