Veterinary Non-Competes in New York
New York has no general non-compete statute, so a veterinarian's covenant is judged under the common-law reasonableness test from BDO Seidman v.
Hirshberg (1999): the restraint must protect a legitimate employer interest, avoid undue hardship on the employee, and not injure the public.
Four targeted searches of New York's Public Health, Education and Labor Law found no healthcare-practitioner non-compete statute — the state's only confirmed non-compete statute, Labor Law § 202-k, covers broadcast employees, not veterinarians.
There is no wage threshold.
This page was last verified in September 2026.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted — judged on reasonableness
Court decisions (no governing statute) — No general New York non-compete statute; a veterinarian's covenant is judged under the common-law reasonableness/legitimate-interest test set out in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1999). NY Labor Law § 202-k is a separate, broadcast-employee-specific ban that does not reach veterinarians..
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No healthcare-specific non-compete statute.
New York has no general non-compete statute. Under BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, a restraint is reasonable only if it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interest, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public — violating any single prong renders the covenant invalid.
Not applicable — no healthcare-practitioner non-compete statute was found in New York's Public Health Law, Education Law or Labor Law (four targeted searches); this is a search-coverage finding, not proof no such provision exists anywhere in New York law. New York's only confirmed non-compete statute, Labor Law § 202-k, covers broadcast employees only.
None statutory. New York's non-compete framework is common law only, so the same three-prong reasonableness test applies whatever a veterinarian earns.
No fixed statutory cap. Under BDO Seidman, a restraint's duration and geographic reach are judged case by case against what is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interest — not against a set number of months or miles.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg was decided in 1999. NY Labor Law § 202-k's page shows a revision date of September 22, 2014, which is a listing/codification date, not necessarily the section's original enactment date.
What New York’s text actually says
“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 ... A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid.”
The three-part test a New York veterinary non-compete is measured against
With no New York statute governing employee non-competes generally, the New York Court of Appeals' three-prong test in BDO Seidman v.
Hirshberg is the operative standard: a restraint is reasonable only if it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interest, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.
The opinion is explicit that violating any single prong renders the covenant invalid — the three questions are conjunctive, not a weighted average.
The court also recognizes a legitimate employer interest in preventing a former employee from exploiting client or customer goodwill that the employer created and paid to maintain.
For an associate veterinarian reading an offer, that frames the inquiry around what the practice actually built and funded, not around a fixed number of months or miles.
“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 ... A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid.”
Why no New York healthcare non-compete law reaches veterinarians
The research behind this page ran four targeted searches of New York's Public Health Law, Education Law and Labor Law collections looking for a physician- or healthcare-practitioner-specific non-compete statute.
None was found.
New York's only confirmed statutory non-compete provision is Labor Law § 202-k, which bars a broadcasting employer from restricting a broadcast employee's post-employment work in a specified geographic area, for a specific period, or with a particular employer or industry — a narrow, industry-specific rule with nothing to do with healthcare or veterinary medicine.
That distinction matters for a reader who has seen headlines about healthcare-worker non-compete bans: the searched collections turned up no such law reaching any profession, though this is a negative finding from search coverage, not a claim that every corner of New York law has been reviewed.
“any on-air employee or off-air employee of a broadcasting industry employer, excluding management employees.”
No wage floor for a New York veterinarian's non-compete
New York's non-compete framework has no statutory wage threshold, because it has no general non-compete statute — the three-prong BDO Seidman test applies to a veterinary associate whatever their salary.
The test turns instead on the restraint's scope against the employer's legitimate interest, the hardship on the employee, and the public interest, not on a published dollar figure.
What BDO Seidman says about an overbroad covenant
BDO Seidman addresses what happens when a covenant is found overbroad: the opinion states that partial enforcement may be justified if the employer demonstrates an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, and shows it acted in good faith to protect a legitimate business interest consistent with reasonable standards of fair dealing.
Partial enforcement is conditioned on that showing, not automatic.
The opinion does not use the terms "blue-pencil," "red-pencil" or "reformation" to describe the mechanism, and the research behind this page does not go further than the quoted holding.
“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.”
What this page does not answer for New York
The sources read for this page do not address how New York treats a covenant tied to selling a practice or an ownership interest, or how client and staff non-solicitation clauses are handled outside the general three-prong test.
Those gaps matter most at a buy-in or buy-out, where a covenant may be drafted alongside the purchase terms rather than the employment terms.
They are left blank here rather than filled from general legal commentary — take them to a New York attorney with the whole agreement in hand.
Bills on record — not law
S3100A (2023)
A general non-compete ban bill that would have applied broadly across New York employment, not limited to healthcare or veterinary practice specifically. It passed the legislature but Governor Hochul vetoed it in December 2023, so it never became law and New York's non-compete framework remains common law only.
Have the agreement itself reviewed
Start with the mechanics
The reasonableness test, what a radius is measured from, the access-to-care argument, and the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause are covered in the national guide to veterinary non-competes. This page covers only what is specific to New York.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does New York have a healthcare-specific non-compete law that covers veterinarians?
No such law was found.
The research behind this page ran four targeted searches of New York's Public Health Law, Education Law and Labor Law and found no physician- or healthcare-practitioner-specific non-compete statute, though that's a search-coverage finding rather than proof none exists.
New York's only confirmed non-compete statute, Labor Law § 202-k, covers broadcast employees, not veterinarians or any other healthcare profession.
Have a New York attorney who handles veterinary employment contracts read your actual agreement against the common-law test that does apply.
Is there a salary level below which a New York veterinarian cannot be bound by a non-compete?
No. New York has no general non-compete statute, so there is no published wage threshold.
A veterinarian's covenant is instead judged under BDO Seidman v.
Hirshberg's three-prong reasonableness test, which turns on the employer's legitimate interest, hardship on the employee, and the public interest — not on pay.
A New York employment attorney can tell you how that test bears on your specific contract.
What test does a New York court use to decide whether a veterinarian's non-compete is reasonable?
BDO Seidman v.
Hirshberg sets a three-prong test: the restraint must be no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interest, must not impose undue hardship on the employee, and must not injure the public.
The opinion states that violating any single prong renders the covenant invalid.
How those three prongs apply to a specific offer letter or duration and geography combination is a question for a New York attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements.
Does selling my share of a New York veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
The sources read for this page do not address how New York treats a covenant tied to the sale of a practice or an ownership interest, so this page does not answer it.
A buy-in or buy-out agreement may carry its own covenant, drafted alongside the purchase terms rather than the employment terms.
Before signing one, have a New York attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review the covenant and the purchase agreement together.
Did New York recently pass a law banning non-competes?
No. A general non-compete ban bill, S3100A, passed the New York legislature in 2023 but Governor Hochul vetoed it that December, so it never became law.
New York's framework remains the common-law BDO Seidman v.
Hirshberg test described on this page.
This page was last verified in September 2026; ask an attorney to confirm the current status before relying on it.
More New York Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1999) — Midpage Legal Research (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k — New York State Senate (official) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
Sourced from New York’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg was decided in 1999. NY Labor Law § 202-k's page shows a revision date of September 22, 2014, which is a listing/codification date, not necessarily the section's original enactment date. This page is general information, not legal advice.