{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "new-york", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in New York", "description": "New York has no general non-compete statute; employee non-competes are enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable under the common-law BDO Seidman test.", "state": "New York", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "New York has no general non-compete statute; employee non-competes are enforceable only to the extent reasonable under the common-law BDO Seidman three-part test, with a statutory ban only for broadcast-industry employees.", "keyLaw": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999)", "exceptions": "Broadcast-employee ban (N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k); sale-of-business/goodwill more favorable", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Express contractual tolling enforced in Delta; an equivalent extension without tolling language remains unresolved", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None — $500,000 pending bill not law", "saleOfBusiness": "Pending bill would preserve 15% owner covenants", "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies", "employeeNonSolicit": "Employee no-recruit clauses less burdensome than non-competes; reasonable" }, "about": [ "New York non-compete agreements", "New York restrictive covenants", "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg reasonableness test", "New York legitimate business interest", "New York non-compete consideration", "New York broadcast industry non-compete ban", "New York sale-of-business non-compete", "New York non-compete legislation S4641A" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-new-york" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in New York?", "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. New York has no general statute governing non-competes, so enforceability is decided under common law: an employee non-compete is enforceable only to the extent it is reasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "bdo-reasonableness-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg", "citation": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 388 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/#:~:text=The%20modern%2C%20prevailing%20common%2Dlaw%20standard,compete%20applies%20a%20three%2Dpronged%20test.", "proposition": "BDO Seidman supports New York's common-law rule that employee non-competes are judged by a three-pronged reasonableness test, and that violating any prong invalidates the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "The modern, prevailing common-law standard of reasonableness for employee agreements not to compete applies a three-pronged test.", "date": "1999-05-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-bdo-reasonableness-standard" }, { "id": "natural-organics-three-prong-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall", "citation": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall, 52 A.D.3d 488 (2d Dep't 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/#:~:text=%22A%20restraint%20is%20reasonable%20only,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public%22", "proposition": "Natural Organics restates the BDO three-prong reasonableness test as applied by New York's intermediate appellate courts.", "verbatimQuote": "\"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\"", "date": "2008-06-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-natural-organics-three-prong-test" }, { "id": "ag-faq-four-part-test", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Attorney General, Non-Compete Agreements in New York State: FAQ", "citation": "N.Y. Att'y Gen., Non-Compete Agreements in New York State: Frequently Asked Questions (2022).", "url": "https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/non-competes.pdf", "proposition": "The New York Attorney General's guidance summarizes the four-factor enforceability framework for employees.", "verbatimQuote": "A non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it (1) is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) does not harm the public, and (4) is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.", "date": "2022-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-ag-faq-four-part-test" }, { "id": "otg-enforceability-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis", "citation": "OTG Mgt., LLC v. Konstantinidis, 40 Misc. 3d 617 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20enforceable%2C,unreasonably%20burdensome%20to%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "OTG Management states the reasonableness standard New York courts apply to covenants ancillary to employment.", "verbatimQuote": "In order to be enforceable, an anticompetitive covenant ancillary to an employment agreement must be 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.", "date": "2013-06-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-otg-enforceability-standard" } ] }, { "slug": "protectable-interests", "label": "What interests are protectable?", "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a New York non-compete?", "answerText": "The protectable interests are narrow: a New York covenant must guard against misappropriation of trade secrets or confidential customer information, or against competition by a former employee whose services were unique or extraordinary, or protect client goodwill the employer's resources helped the employee build.", "sources": [ { "id": "gallagher-limited-interests", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Marchese", "citation": "Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d 791 (2d Dep't 2012).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5999301/arthur-j-gallagher-co-v-marchese/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5999301/arthur-j-gallagher-co-v-marchese/#:~:text=An%20employer%E2%80%99s%20interests%20justifying%20a,services%20are%20unique%20or%20extraordinary%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Gallagher restates BDO's limited categories of protectable employer interests: trade secrets, confidential customer lists, and unique or extraordinary services.", "verbatimQuote": "An employer’s interests justifying a restrictive covenant are limited “to the protection against misappropriation of the employer’s trade secrets or of confidential customer lists, or protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary”", "date": "2012-06-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-gallagher-limited-interests" }, { "id": "bdo-goodwill-interest", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg", "citation": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 392 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/#:~:text=The%20employer%20has%20a%20legitimate,to%20the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20competitive%20detriment", "proposition": "BDO Seidman recognizes an employer's legitimate interest in client goodwill created and maintained at the employer's expense.", "verbatimQuote": "The employer has a 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, to the employer’s competitive detriment", "date": "1999-05-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-bdo-goodwill-interest" }, { "id": "reed-roberts-routine-knowledge", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Strauman", "citation": "Reed, Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5682269/reed-roberts-associates-inc-v-strauman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5682269/reed-roberts-associates-inc-v-strauman/#:~:text=Where%20the%20knowledge%20does%20not,by%20availing%20himself%20of%20opportunity.", "proposition": "Reed, Roberts holds that an employee's knowledge of routine internal operations is not protectable absent a trade secret or breach of trust.", "verbatimQuote": "Where the knowledge does not qualify for protection as a trade secret and there has been no conspiracy or breach of trust resulting in commercial piracy we see no reason to inhibit the employee’s ability to realize his potential both professionally and financially by availing himself of opportunity.", "date": "1976-07-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-reed-roberts-routine-knowledge" }, { "id": "natural-organics-no-interest", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall", "citation": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall, 52 A.D.3d 488 (2d Dep't 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/#:~:text=Since%20there%20is%20no%20legitimate,partial%20enforcement%20does%20not%20arise", "proposition": "Natural Organics holds that without a legitimate employer interest, a non-compete is unenforceable and partial enforcement does not arise.", "verbatimQuote": "Since there is no legitimate employer interest to protect, the noncompete agreement is unenforceable and the issue of partial enforcement does not arise", "date": "2008-06-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-natural-organics-no-interest" }, { "id": "weitz-unique-services-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Purchasing Associates, Inc. v. Weitz", "citation": "Purchasing Assocs., Inc. v. Weitz, 13 N.Y.2d 267 (1963).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5673277/purchasing-associates-inc-v-weitz/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5673277/purchasing-associates-inc-v-weitz/#:~:text=More%20must%2C%20of%20course%2C%20be,high%20value%20to%20his%20employer.", "proposition": "Weitz defines the demanding 'unique or extraordinary' threshold for enforcing a covenant absent trade secrets.", "verbatimQuote": "More must, of course, be shown to establish such a quality than that the employee excels at his work or that his performance is of high value to his employer.", "date": "1963-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-weitz-unique-services-standard" }, { "id": "ticor-unique-services", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. Cohen", "citation": "Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/763095/ticor-title-insurance-co-chicago-title-insurance-co-v-kenneth-c-cohen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/763095/ticor-title-insurance-co-chicago-title-insurance-co-v-kenneth-c-cohen/#:~:text=Services%20that%20are%20not%20simply,an%20employer%20to%20injunctive%20relief.", "proposition": "Ticor (applying New York law) confirms that only special, unique, or extraordinary services support injunctive enforcement of a non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "Services that are not simply of value to the employer, but that may also truly be said to be special, unique or extraordinary may entitle an employer to injunctive relief.", "date": "1999-03-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-ticor-unique-services" }, { "id": "ticor-case-by-case", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. Cohen", "citation": "Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/763095/ticor-title-insurance-co-chicago-title-insurance-co-v-kenneth-c-cohen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/763095/ticor-title-insurance-co-chicago-title-insurance-co-v-kenneth-c-cohen/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20now%20the%20inquiry%20is,be%20on%20a%20case%2Dby%2Dcase%20basis.", "proposition": "Ticor explains that whether services are unique is a fact-specific, case-by-case inquiry into the employee's relationship to the business.", "verbatimQuote": "Instead, now the inquiry is more focused on the employee’s relationship to the employer’s business to ascertain whether his or her services and value to that operation may be said to be unique, special or extraordinary; that inquiry, because individual circumstances differ so widely, must of necessity be on a case-by-case basis.", "date": "1999-03-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-ticor-case-by-case" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will a court narrow an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will a New York court narrow (blue-pencil) an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Sometimes, but partial enforcement is discretionary, not automatic. New York rejects a per se rule voiding every overbroad covenant, yet a court will rewrite one to a reasonable scope only when the employer acted in good faith and did not overreach.", "sources": [ { "id": "bdo-rejects-per-se", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg", "citation": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 394 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/#:~:text=The%20prevailing%2C%20modern%20view%20rejects,employee%20agreement%20not%20to%20compete.", "proposition": "BDO Seidman rejects a per se rule that would void any overbroad employee non-compete in its entirety.", "verbatimQuote": "The prevailing, modern view rejects a per se rule that invalidates entirely any overbroad employee agreement not to compete.", "date": "1999-05-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-bdo-rejects-per-se" }, { "id": "bdo-partial-enforcement-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg", "citation": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 394 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/#:~:text=Under%20this%20approach%2C%20if%20the,partial%20enforcement%20may%20be%20justified", "proposition": "BDO Seidman conditions partial enforcement on the employer's good faith and absence of overreaching or coercion.", "verbatimQuote": "Under this approach, 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", "date": "1999-05-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-bdo-partial-enforcement-standard" }, { "id": "ag-faq-partial-enforcement", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Attorney General, Non-Compete Agreements in New York State: FAQ", "citation": "N.Y. Att'y Gen., Non-Compete Agreements in New York State: Frequently Asked Questions (2022).", "url": "https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/non-competes.pdf", "proposition": "The Attorney General's guidance explains that courts may enforce only the reasonable portions of a non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "A court may require an employee to comply with some parts of a non-compete agreement, even if other portions of the agreement are unreasonable, such as length of time or geographic scope.", "date": "2022-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-ag-faq-partial-enforcement" }, { "id": "natural-organics-no-severance", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall", "citation": "Natural Organics, Inc. v. Kirkendall, 52 A.D.3d 488 (2d Dep't 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5897806/natural-organics-inc-v-kirkendall/#:~:text=Since%20there%20is%20no%20legitimate,partial%20enforcement%20does%20not%20arise", "proposition": "Natural Organics holds that when no legitimate interest exists, the covenant is unenforceable and partial enforcement does not arise.", "verbatimQuote": "Since there is no legitimate employer interest to protect, the noncompete agreement is unenforceable and the issue of partial enforcement does not arise", "date": "2008-06-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-natural-organics-no-severance" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "Is continued employment enough consideration for a New York non-compete signed after hire?", "answerText": "It can be. New York treats at-will employment as a relationship that will support a restrictive covenant, and an employer's forbearance from discharging an at-will worker can supply consideration — but only if the employment then continues for a substantial period.", "sources": [ { "id": "zellner-at-will-supports-covenant", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C.", "citation": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C., 183 A.D.2d 250 (2d Dep't 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/#:~:text=We%20believe%2C%20however%2C%20that%20at%2Dwill,will%20support%20a%20restrictive%20covenant.", "proposition": "Zellner holds that at-will employment is a relationship capable of supporting a restrictive covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "We believe, however, that at-will employment qualifies as a relationship which will support a restrictive covenant.", "date": "1992-11-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-zellner-at-will-supports-covenant" }, { "id": "zellner-substantial-period", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C.", "citation": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C., 183 A.D.2d 250 (2d Dep't 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/#:~:text=However%2C%20where%2C%20as%20here%2C%20a,for%20the%20promise%20is%20validated.", "proposition": "Zellner holds that continued employment for a substantial period validates the consideration for an after-hire covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "However, where, as here, a relationship continues for a substantial period after the covenant is given, the forbearance is real, not illusory, and the consideration given for the promise is validated.", "date": "1992-11-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-zellner-substantial-period" }, { "id": "zellner-consideration-required", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C.", "citation": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C., 183 A.D.2d 250 (2d Dep't 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/#:~:text=As%20with%20any%20contract%2C%20the,the%20part%20of%20the%20promisee.", "proposition": "Zellner restates that a non-compete promise must be supported by adequate consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "As with any contract, the promise not to compete must be supported by adequate consideration on the part of the promisee.", "date": "1992-11-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-zellner-consideration-required" }, { "id": "zellner-forbearance", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C.", "citation": "Zellner v. Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P.C., 183 A.D.2d 250 (2d Dep't 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6084767/zellner-v-stephen-d-conrad-md-p-c/#:~:text=Because%20in%20at%2Dwill%20employment%20the,consideration%20for%20a%20restrictive%20covenant.", "proposition": "Zellner holds that an employer's forbearance from discharging an at-will worker is a legal detriment that can serve as consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "Because in at-will employment the employer has the right to discharge the employee (or, as here, an independent contractor providing services under a similar arrangement), without cause, and without being subject to inquiry as to his or her motives (Sabetay v Sterling Drug, supra), forbearance of that right is a legal detriment which can stand as consideration for a restrictive covenant.", "date": "1992-11-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-zellner-forbearance" } ] }, { "slug": "nonsolicitation", "label": "How are non-solicitation covenants treated?", "heading": "How does New York treat customer and employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Customer and employee non-solicitation covenants are still measured for reasonableness, but employee non-recruitment clauses are treated as less restrictive than a full non-compete and may be enforceable when reasonable; a customer non-solicitation clause must be tied to the clients the employee actually served.", "sources": [ { "id": "otg-nonrecruitment-less-restrictive", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis", "citation": "OTG Mgt., LLC v. Konstantinidis, 40 Misc. 3d 617 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/#:~:text=While%20both%20Renaissance%20Nutrition%20and,less%20restrictive%E2%80%9D%20than%20noncompete%20clauses.", "proposition": "OTG Management treats employee non-recruitment clauses as inherently more reasonable and less restrictive than non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "While both Renaissance Nutrition and Lazer recognized that non-recruitment clauses are subject to reasonableness scrutiny because they are anti-competitive in nature, non-recruitment clauses are “inherently more reasonable and less restrictive” than noncompete clauses.", "date": "2013-06-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-otg-nonrecruitment-less-restrictive" }, { "id": "otg-nonrecruitment-enforced", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis", "citation": "OTG Mgt., LLC v. Konstantinidis, 40 Misc. 3d 617 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/#:~:text=Here%2C%20the%20court%20finds%20that,no%20meaningful%20burden%20on%20Konstantinidis.", "proposition": "OTG Management enforced a reasonable non-recruitment clause while declining to enforce the non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "Here, the court finds that the non-recruitment clause is enforceable because it is reasonable in scope and imposes no meaningful burden on Konstantinidis.", "date": "2013-06-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-otg-nonrecruitment-enforced" }, { "id": "brown-brown-overbroad-customers", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson", "citation": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/#:~:text=even%20those%20Johnson%20had%20never,she%20had%20done%20no%20work", "proposition": "Brown & Brown holds a customer non-solicitation covenant overbroad under New York law to the extent it reached customers the employee never met, did not know about, and did no work for.", "verbatimQuote": "even those Johnson had never met, did not know about and for whom she had done no work", "date": "2015-06-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-brown-brown-overbroad-customers" }, { "id": "q5-bdo-partial-enforcement", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg", "citation": "BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 394 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2117265/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg/#:~:text=Under%20this%20approach%2C%20if%20the,partial%20enforcement%20may%20be%20justified", "proposition": "BDO Seidman supports preserving partial enforcement of an overbroad covenant where the employer has not overreached.", "verbatimQuote": "Under this approach, 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", "date": "1999-05-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-q5-bdo-partial-enforcement" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "How are sale-of-business covenants treated?", "heading": "How are sale-of-business and goodwill non-competes treated in New York?", "answerText": "More favorably than employee covenants. When someone sells a business and its goodwill, New York implies a covenant barring the seller from soliciting the former customers — a duty the Court of Appeals describes as permanent and narrower than an express non-compete.", "sources": [ { "id": "bessemer-implied-covenant", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin", "citation": "Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 16 N.Y.3d 549 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2526164/bessemer-trust-co-na-v-branin/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2526164/bessemer-trust-co-na-v-branin/#:~:text=In%20answering%20the%20certified%20question%2C,improperly%20soliciting%20his%20former%20clients.", "proposition": "Bessemer Trust holds that on a sale of goodwill, the implied covenant bars the seller from improperly soliciting former clients.", "verbatimQuote": "In answering the certified question, we continue to apply our precedents in Von Bremen and Mohawk and hold that the “implied covenant” bars a seller of “good will” from improperly soliciting his former clients.", "date": "2011-04-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-bessemer-implied-covenant" }, { "id": "mohawk-permanent-duty", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler", "citation": "Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler, 52 N.Y.2d 276 (1981).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5684701/mohawk-maintenance-co-v-kessler/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5684701/mohawk-maintenance-co-v-kessler/#:~:text=Although%20defendants%20may%20accept%20the,acquisition%20of%20Mohawk%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cgood%20will%E2%80%9D.", "proposition": "Mohawk Maintenance holds that the seller may accept unsolicited patronage but remains under a permanent duty not to solicit former customers after a sale of goodwill.", "verbatimQuote": "Although defendants may accept the patronage of those customers who were actively dealing with Mohawk on the date of the sale if such customers choose to leave Mohawk without prompting from defendants, the defendants remain under a positive and permanent duty to refrain from interfering with the rights acquired by plaintiff as a result of its acquisition of Mohawk’s “good will”.", "date": "1981-02-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-mohawk-permanent-duty" }, { "id": "mohawk-narrower-duty", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler", "citation": "Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler, 52 N.Y.2d 276 (1981).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5684701/mohawk-maintenance-co-v-kessler/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5684701/mohawk-maintenance-co-v-kessler/#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20the%20%E2%80%9Cimplied%20covenant%E2%80%9D,area%20or%20field%20of%20endeavor.", "proposition": "Mohawk Maintenance explains the implied covenant imposes a narrower duty than an express non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "As such, the “implied covenant” imposes a much narrower duty than do express covenants purporting to restrict the seller’s right to compete in a particular geographical area or field of endeavor.", "date": "1981-02-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-mohawk-narrower-duty" }, { "id": "s4641a-sale-of-business", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2025-S4641A (pending)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S4641A, § 191-d(6) (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) (pending).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4641/amendment/A", "proposition": "S4641A, if enacted, would preserve sale-of-business and goodwill non-competes for owners holding at least a 15% interest.", "verbatimQuote": "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT THE INCLUSION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR COVENANTS IN THE SALE OF THE GOODWILL OF A BUSINESS OR THE SALE OR DISPOSITION OF A MAJORITY OF AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN A BUSINESS BY A PARTNER OF A PARTNERSHIP, A MEMBER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR AN ENTITY", "date": "2025-06-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s4641a-sale-of-business" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-of-law", "label": "Can an out-of-state choice-of-law clause avoid New York rules?", "heading": "Can an out-of-state choice-of-law clause avoid New York non-compete rules?", "answerText": "Not when the chosen law is truly obnoxious to New York policy. In Brown & Brown v. Johnson, the Court of Appeals refused to apply a Florida choice-of-law clause to a non-solicitation dispute involving a New York employee, holding that doing so would violate New York public policy.", "sources": [ { "id": "brown-brown-choice-of-law", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson", "citation": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/#:~:text=On%20this%20appeal%2C%20we%20hold,public%20policy%20of%20this%20state.", "proposition": "Brown & Brown holds that applying Florida law to a former employee's non-solicitation covenant would violate New York public policy, so New York law governs.", "verbatimQuote": "On this appeal, we hold that applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state.", "date": "2015-06-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-brown-brown-choice-of-law" }, { "id": "s4641a-choice-of-law-antiavoidance", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2025-S4641A (pending)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S4641A, § 191-d(8) (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) (pending).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4641/amendment/A", "proposition": "S4641A, if enacted, would void choice-of-law and venue clauses used to avoid the statute for workers who reside or work in New York.", "verbatimQuote": "NO CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OR CHOICE OF VENUE PROVISION THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF AVOIDING OR LIMITING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE IF THE COVERED INDIVIDUAL IS AND HAS BEEN, FOR AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE COVERED INDIVIDUAL'S CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK OR EMPLOYED IN NEW YORK", "date": "2025-06-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s4641a-choice-of-law-antiavoidance" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does the restricted period pause during a breach?", "heading": "Does a New York non-compete's restricted period pause (toll) during a breach or litigation?", "answerText": "An express contractual tolling clause can extend a New York restrictive covenant during a proven period of breach. The covenant, including its extended duration, must still be reasonable in time.", "analysis": [ { "id": "ny-tolling-contract-rule", "role": "conclusion", "text": "An express contractual tolling clause can extend a New York restrictive covenant during a proven period of breach.", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "delta-contractual-tolling", "relationship": "direct-support" } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-duration-rule", "role": "legal-rule", "text": "The covenant, including its extended duration, must still be reasonable in time.", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "tolling-time-reasonableness", "relationship": "direct-support" } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-delta-rationale", "role": "rationale", "analysisObjective": "assess-enforceability", "text": "In Delta Enterprise Corp. v. Cohen, the First Department held at the preliminary-injunction stage that the injunction should follow a confidentiality agreement's language automatically extending its restrictive periods by the time the employee was in violation. The court rejected the argument that the provision was unenforceable as a matter of law or violated public policy. The decision supports express contractual tolling, but its preliminary-injunction posture and the agreement before the court limit what it establishes about non-competes generally.", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "delta-contractual-tolling", "relationship": "direct-support" } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-no-clause-limitation", "role": "limitation", "text": "Delta does not establish that a court will pause or extend a restriction during breach or litigation when the agreement contains no tolling language", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "delta-contractual-tolling", "relationship": "context", "relationshipExplanation": "The decision enforces an express tolling clause and therefore does not establish whether a court may create an equivalent extension when the agreement is silent." } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-defined-extension-recommendation", "role": "recommendation", "analysisObjective": "drafting-clarity", "text": "If the parties intend breach to extend the restriction, the agreement should expressly provide that a breach extends the restriction, define the triggering violation, and tie the extension to the proven period of breach.", "reqId": "REQ-labor-and-employment-law.restrictive-covenant-agreement.address-tolling-during-breach", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "delta-contractual-tolling", "relationship": "inference-support" }, { "sourceId": "tolling-time-reasonableness", "relationship": "inference-support" } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-recommendation-limitation", "role": "limitation", "text": "Express language clarifies the intended operation, but it does not establish that a court will find the extended duration reasonable", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "delta-contractual-tolling", "relationship": "context", "relationshipExplanation": "The preliminary-injunction decision in Delta rejects a categorical challenge to a confidentiality agreement's express clause, while OTG makes duration part of reasonableness; neither authority guarantees enforcement of every tolling formulation." }, { "sourceId": "tolling-time-reasonableness", "relationship": "context", "relationshipExplanation": "The preliminary-injunction decision in Delta rejects a categorical challenge to a confidentiality agreement's express clause, while OTG makes duration part of reasonableness; neither authority guarantees enforcement of every tolling formulation." } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-pending-bill-rule", "role": "limitation", "text": "S4641A would cap a permissible non-compete at one year if enacted.", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "s4641a-one-year-cap", "relationship": "direct-support" } ] }, { "id": "ny-tolling-pending-bill-context", "role": "limitation", "text": "It provides context for evaluating an extension, not current legal support", "evidence": [ { "sourceId": "s4641a-one-year-cap", "relationship": "context", "relationshipExplanation": "The pending bill is relevant legislative context but does not state current New York law." } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "delta-contractual-tolling", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Delta Enterprise Corp. v. Cohen", "citation": "Delta Enter. Corp. v. Cohen, 93 A.D.3d 411, 412 (1st Dep't 2012).", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01558.htm", "proposition": "At the preliminary-injunction stage, Delta Enterprise applied a confidentiality agreement's express provision automatically extending restrictive periods during the employee's violation and rejected a categorical public-policy challenge to the provision.", "verbatimQuote": "The agreement's tolling provision provides for the tolling of the various restrictive periods \"during any period in which Employee is in violation\" of the restrictive covenants, and provides that \"all restrictions shall automatically be extended by the period Employee was in violation of any such restrictions.\" We reject defendant's argument that such a provision is, as a matter of law, unenforceable or violates public policy especially where, as here, there was evidence that defendant consulted with counsel before executing the agreement, that he received $50,000 in consideration thereof, and there are significant and multiple indications of his bad faith (see Chernoff Diamond & Co. v Fitzmaurice, Inc., 234 AD2d 200, 202 [1996]; Maltby v Harlow Meyer Savage, 223 AD2d 516 [1996], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 874 [1996]).", "date": "2012-03-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-delta-contractual-tolling" }, { "id": "tolling-time-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis", "citation": "OTG Mgt., LLC v. Konstantinidis, 40 Misc. 3d 617 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6314442/otg-management-llc-v-konstantinidis/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20enforceable%2C,unreasonably%20burdensome%20to%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "OTG Management confirms that a covenant ancillary to employment must be reasonable in time, so an extended restricted period remains subject to reasonableness review.", "verbatimQuote": "In order to be enforceable, an anticompetitive covenant ancillary to an employment agreement must be 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.", "date": "2013-06-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-tolling-time-reasonableness" }, { "id": "s4641a-one-year-cap", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2025-S4641A (pending)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S4641A, § 191-d(7)(a) (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) (pending).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4641/amendment/A", "proposition": "S4641A, if enacted, would cap any permissible non-compete at a one-year term, limiting how far an extension-on-breach clause could reach.", "verbatimQuote": "A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT THAT IS REASONABLE IN TIME PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT CONTAIN A TERM OF RESTRICTION GREATER THAN ONE YEAR", "date": "2025-06-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s4641a-one-year-cap" } ] }, { "slug": "broadcast-industry", "label": "What rule applies to broadcast employees?", "heading": "What special non-compete rule applies to broadcast-industry employees in New York?", "answerText": "Broadcast employees have a statutory shield. New York Labor Law § 202-k bars a broadcasting-industry employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that a broadcast employee refrain from working in a geographic area, for a period of time, or for a competitor after employment ends.", "sources": [ { "id": "lab-202k-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k", "citation": "N.Y. Lab. Law § 202-k(2).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/202-K", "proposition": "Labor Law § 202-k prohibits broadcasting-industry employers from imposing post-employment non-competes on broadcast employees.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2014-12-26", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-lab-202k-ban" }, { "id": "lab-202k-in-term-carveout", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k", "citation": "N.Y. Lab. Law § 202-k(2).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/202-K", "proposition": "Labor Law § 202-k applies only to post-employment restraints, not to covenants operating during the contract term.", "verbatimQuote": "This section shall not apply to preventing the enforcement of such a covenant during the term of an employment contract.", "date": "2014-12-26", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-lab-202k-in-term-carveout" } ] }, { "slug": "recent-developments", "label": "What are the recent developments?", "heading": "What are the key recent developments in New York non-compete law?", "answerText": "New York has not banned non-competes, despite repeated attempts. A near-total statutory ban was vetoed at the end of 2023, a narrower successor bill is pending in 2026, and the federal FTC non-compete rule has been vacated — so common law still controls.", "sources": [ { "id": "mclaren-macomb-protected-activity", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "NLRB news release on McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023)", "citation": "McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023); NLRB Office of Public Affairs (Feb. 21, 2023).", "url": "https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring", "proposition": "The NLRB held that offering severance terms that broadly waive Section 7 rights — including overbroad confidentiality and non-disparagement terms — violates the NLRA.", "verbatimQuote": "simply offering employees a severance agreement that requires them to broadly give up their rights under Section 7 of the Act violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.", "date": "2023-02-21", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-mclaren-macomb-protected-activity" }, { "id": "s3100a-vetoed-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2023-S3100A (vetoed)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S3100A, § 191-d(2) (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (vetoed Dec. 22, 2023).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S3100/amendment/A", "proposition": "S3100A would have banned employers from seeking or accepting non-competes from covered individuals, but was vetoed on December 22, 2023.", "verbatimQuote": "NO EMPLOYER OR ITS AGENT, OR THE OFFICER OR AGENT OF ANY CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR OTHER ENTITY, SHALL SEEK, REQUIRE, DEMAND OR ACCEPT A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT FROM ANY COVERED INDIVIDUAL.", "date": "2023-12-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s3100a-vetoed-ban" }, { "id": "s4641a-pending-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2025-S4641A (pending)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S4641A, § 191-d(2) (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) (pending).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4641/amendment/A", "proposition": "S4641A, passed by the Senate and pending in the Assembly, would render non-competes accepted after its effective date null, void, and unenforceable for covered individuals.", "verbatimQuote": "ANY NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT SOUGHT, REQUIRED, DEMANDED OR ACCEPTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE NULL, VOID, AND UNENFORCEABLE.", "date": "2025-06-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s4641a-pending-ban" }, { "id": "s4641a-highly-compensated", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.Y. Senate Bill 2025-S4641A (pending)", "citation": "N.Y. S.B. S4641A, § 191-d(1)(c) (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) (pending).", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4641/amendment/A", "proposition": "S4641A would exempt highly compensated individuals earning at or above a $500,000 (CPI-adjusted) annual threshold from the non-compete ban.", "verbatimQuote": "EQUIVALENT TO OR GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR, PROVIDED THAT SUCH COMPENSATION LEVEL SHALL BE ADJUSTED EACH CALENDAR YEAR, BEGINNING IN TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-SEVEN", "date": "2025-06-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-s4641a-highly-compensated" }, { "id": "ftc-rule-vacated", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "FTC, Press Release: FTC Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule", "citation": "FTC, Press Release, FTC Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule (Sept. 5, 2025).", "url": "https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/federal-trade-commission-files-accede-vacatur-non-compete-clause-rule", "proposition": "The FTC moved to dismiss its appeals and accede to vacatur of the 2024 federal Non-Compete Clause Rule, confirming there is no operative federal ban.", "verbatimQuote": "Today the Federal Trade Commission took steps to dismiss its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir.), and Properties of the Villages v. FTC, No. 24-13102 (11th Cir.), and to accede to the vacatur of the Non-Compete Clause Rule.", "date": "2025-09-05", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york#src-ftc-rule-vacated" } ] } ] } }