New York Non-Compete Laws (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?

New York has no general statute banning or limiting employee non-competes. Outside the broadcasting industry, a New York non-compete is enforceable only if it passes the common-law reasonableness test the Court of Appeals set out in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999). The only statutory ban, N.Y. Labor Law 202-k, protects broadcast employees.

A broader ban has been close several times. The Legislature passed one in 2023, and Governor Hochul vetoed it. A new version passed the Senate in June 2026 but, as of October 6, 2026, had not left the Assembly Labor Committee. For how other states compare, see our non-compete laws by state guide.

Information last verified on October 6, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers New York law on employee non-compete agreements: the common-law test in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, the broadcast-employee ban in N.Y. Labor Law 202-k, and pending and vetoed bills, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret law, severance pay or wrongful-termination claims; see our New York trade secret laws and New York severance pay laws pages.

The rule: the BDO Seidman reasonableness test

New York's highest court described "the modern, prevailing common law standard of reasonableness for employee agreements not to compete" as a three-pronged test. In BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, the Court of Appeals held:

"A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public" BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999)

A covenant that fails any one of the three prongs is invalid. A court asks all three questions about the specific agreement and the specific worker; there is no statutory checklist.

What counts as a legitimate employer interest

In BDO Seidman, the Court of Appeals described its earlier decision in Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303 (1976), as enforcing a covenant only to the extent it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests, not harmful to the public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. According to BDO Seidman, Reed, Roberts limited the employer interests courts recognize to three:

• Trade secrets
• Confidential customer lists
• Protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary

BDO Seidman itself recognized a further interest: an employer's "legitimate interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of a client or customer, which had been created and maintained at the employer's expense." The court enforced the covenant only as to clients the employee came to serve through his work at the firm. It held the covenant could not reach clients he never served, or personal clients who came to the firm only through his own independent recruitment efforts.

How courts apply those categories to a particular job, and how they weigh the hardship and public-interest prongs, depends on the facts of each case.

No statutory thresholds, notice or length limits

We found no general New York statute that sets a salary floor, a notice period, a consideration requirement, a maximum length or a geographic limit for employee non-competes. Each of those terms is judged under the BDO Seidman reasonableness test instead.

The circumstances of signing can matter. In BDO Seidman, the court noted that the covenant was required in connection with a promotion, not as a condition of initial or continued employment, as a fact supporting partial enforcement.

A $500,000 pay figure is attached to New York non-competes only in a pending bill, not in current law. See the pending legislation section below.

What happens to an overbroad non-compete

New York courts do not have to choose between enforcing a covenant as written and throwing it out. BDO Seidman allows partial enforcement of an overbroad covenant, but only after a case-specific look at the employer's conduct:

"if the employer demonstrates an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, but has in good faith sought to protect a legitimate business interest, consistent with reasonable standards of fair dealing, partial enforcement may be justified" BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999)

Partial enforcement is a matter for the court's discretion. It is not automatic, and an employer that overreached may lose the covenant entirely.

Broadcast employees: Labor Law 202-k

The one statutory ban applies to the broadcasting industry. N.Y. Labor Law 202-k provides:

"A broadcasting industry employer shall not require as a condition of employment, whether in an employment contract or otherwise, that a broadcast employee or prospective broadcast employee refrain from obtaining employment: (a) in any specified geographic area; (b) for a specific period of time; or (c) with any particular employer or in any particular industry; after the conclusion of employment with such broadcasting industry employer."

The law covers on-air and off-air broadcast employees but excludes management employees. It does not stop an employer from enforcing a covenant during the term of the contract. An employer that violates it is civilly liable to the employee for damages, attorney's fees and costs.

Fired or quit

Being fired without cause can matter in New York. In Post v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 48 N.Y.2d 84 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that an employer that discharged employees without cause could not forfeit their earned pension benefits because they went on to compete. It reasoned that the employer's "continued willingness to employ the party covenanting not to compete" is an essential aspect of the relationship on which such a covenant rests.

The Appellate Division, First Department, has applied that language to ordinary non-competes, holding that they "are not enforceable if the employer ... does not demonstrate 'continued willingness to employ the party covenanting not to compete'" (Buchanan Capital Mkts., LLC v. DeLucca, 144 A.D.3d 508 (1st Dep't 2016)). The rule turns on whether the employer was willing to keep employing the worker, so it does not help a worker who quits, and whether a departure was a without-cause firing can itself be disputed. This page did not survey how every New York court applies the rule. If you were let go and your employer is pressing a non-compete, a New York employment lawyer can explain how courts have handled it. For the background rule on firing, see our New York at-will employment laws page.

Who enforces non-competes

No New York agency enforces general non-compete rules. Disputes are decided by the courts, and a claim under Labor Law 202-k is a private civil action. We found no New York statute governing choice-of-law or forum clauses in non-competes.

Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements

We found no New York statute on non-solicitation, no-poach or nondisclosure agreements; they are governed by common law. A separate New York law, the Trapped at Work Act (Labor Law Article 37, Chapter 643 of 2025, as amended by Chapter 16 of 2026), bars employers from requiring an employee or prospective employee, as a condition of employment, to sign an "employment promissory note" that requires the employee to pay the employer money if the employment ends before a stated period of time, subject to exceptions in the act. It takes effect December 19, 2026. The pending ban would preserve agreements that protect specifically listed legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets, confidential client information and solicitation. Trade secrets themselves are protected by separate law; see our New York trade secret laws page.

Pending and vetoed non-compete bills

What S9759 / A10023 would do if enacted

The 2026 bill is a re-introduction of the same text as S4641-A. As described in the bill materials, it would:

• Ban non-competes for "covered individuals," a group that excludes highly compensated individuals averaging $500,000 per year.
• Ban non-competes for health related professionals regardless of pay.
• Apply only to agreements entered into or modified after it takes effect, 30 days after enactment, with its notice section taking effect after 180 days.
• Give workers a private right of action within 2 years, with liquidated damages of up to $10,000 per covered individual, and require employers to post notice.
• Void choice-of-law or venue clauses that would avoid the ban for anyone who lived or worked in New York for at least 30 days before leaving, including remote workers who report to a New York worksite or supervisor.
• Require any non-compete the section still allows to last no more than one year and to provide for salary during the restriction, and keep sale-of-business covenants for owners of at least a 15 percent interest.

None of this is law. Unless the Assembly passes the bill and the Governor signs it, current New York law remains the BDO Seidman test and Labor Law 202-k.

The federal FTC rule did not change New York law

The FTC's Non-Compete Rule would have barred new non-competes with workers starting September 4, 2024, but a federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024 in Ryan LLC v. FTC. The FTC voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals and removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The FTC still acts case by case: it finalized an order against Gateway Services in November 2025 and approved a final consent order against Rollins on June 22, 2026. See our news coverage of the FTC non-compete ban being struck down.

Before you sign or after you leave

Because New York judges each non-compete on its own facts, the length, area, the interest the employer says it is protecting, and the circumstances in which you signed all matter. Keep a copy of the agreement and any offer or promotion letter that came with it. A New York employment lawyer can review a specific agreement; our state-by-state non-compete guide covers the general questions to ask.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• New York trade secret laws
• New York severance pay laws
• New York at-will employment laws
• FTC non-compete ban struck down in Ryan v. FTC

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about New York non-compete law (the common-law test in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg and N.Y. Labor Law 202-k), not legal advice. The information was verified on October 6, 2026. For advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in New York.

Last updated: October 6, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-compete agreements enforceable in New York?

They can be. Outside broadcasting, New York courts apply the three-part reasonableness test from BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999): the restraint must be no greater than needed to protect a legitimate employer interest, must not impose undue hardship on the employee, and must not injure the public.

Did New York ban non-competes in 2025 or 2026?

No. S4641-A passed the Senate on June 9, 2025 and S9759 passed the Senate on June 3, 2026, but neither passed the Assembly; as of October 6, 2026, S9759 and its companion A10023 were in the Assembly Labor Committee.

Why did Governor Hochul veto the New York non-compete ban?

The record we verified shows that S3100-A passed both houses in 2023 and was vetoed on December 22, 2023 with veto memo 133. We did not read the veto memo, so this page does not summarize its reasons.

What would the pending New York non-compete bill do?

S9759 / A10023 would add a new Labor Law section 191-d banning non-competes for covered individuals, defined to exclude people averaging $500,000 a year, and for health related professionals regardless of pay. It would apply only to agreements entered into or modified after it takes effect, and it is not law.

Can broadcasters in New York be bound by a non-compete?

Under N.Y. Labor Law 202-k, a broadcasting-industry employer may not require a broadcast employee to refrain from post-employment work in a geographic area, for a period of time, or with a particular employer or industry. Management employees are excluded, and the law does not stop enforcement during the contract term.

Will a New York court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Sometimes. BDO Seidman allows partial enforcement if the employer shows an absence of overreaching or coercive use of dominant bargaining power and a good-faith effort to protect a legitimate interest; the court decides that case by case.

Does New York have a salary threshold for non-competes?

Not in current law. A $500,000 figure appears only in the pending S9759 / A10023 bill, which has not passed the Assembly.

Did the FTC ban non-competes in New York?

No. A federal court in Texas set aside the FTC's Non-Compete Rule on August 20, 2024, before it took effect, and the FTC removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.