Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Therapists and Behavioral Health Staff in New York?

Yes — a non-compete with a therapist, BCBA or other employee can be enforceable in New York, but only in a narrow form.

Our research found no New York statute banning or regulating employee non-competes as of October 2026, whether generally or for therapists, psychologists, social workers, behavior analysts, physicians or nurses specifically, so the rules that decide enforceability come from court decisions.

The decision that does most of the work is the New York Court of Appeals' 1999 ruling in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999).

It supplies a reasonableness test every covenant has to clear, and it holds that a court may enforce an overbroad covenant in part — to the extent needed to protect the employer's legitimate interest — rather than invalidating it entirely.

That partial enforcement is not an invitation to overreach: the enforceable core is only what the interest requires.

For how other states treat clinician non-competes, see our guide to non-competes nationally.

Case law, not a statute.

The test comes from BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999), where the New York Court of Appeals held that a restraint on an employee is reasonable only if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.

Every covenant you sign has to clear all three parts.

The Legislature keeps trying to change that and keeps not finishing.

New York's 2023 non-compete ban bill (S3100/A1278) passed both houses but was vetoed by the Governor on December 22, 2023.

In the current session, Senate Bill S4641 passed the Senate on June 9, 2025 and was referred to the Assembly Labor Committee the same day — its last recorded action.

Senate Bill S9759 passed the Senate on June 3, 2026 and was likewise referred to the Assembly Labor Committee, its last recorded action as of October 7, 2026.

None of those bills is law.

Treat the case law as the rule that governs your contracts today, and check the bills' status before relying on anything you read about a New York ban.

None in force.

Our research found no New York statute singling out licensed mental health counselors, marriage and family therapists, social workers, psychologists, behavior analysts, psychiatrists or psychiatric nurse practitioners as of October 2026 — whatever license a clinician holds, the same case-law test governs their covenant.

The closest thing to a clinical-specific rule sits inside the case law.

BDO Seidman describes Karpinski v. Ingrasci, where the Court of Appeals refused to enforce a departing dentist's covenant as to general dentistry but enforced it as to oral surgery, the employer's actual specialty.

The lesson for a group practice or ABA clinic: a New York court may hold a clinician's covenant to what your practice actually does.

A clause drafted around your practice's actual specialty tracks that approach; a blanket ban reaches past it and risks being cut back.

The pending bill would add a profession-specific layer, if it ever becomes law.

S9759 would bar employers from seeking, requiring or accepting a non-compete from any covered individual or health related professional — and the bill's health related professional list includes psychologists (Education Law art. 153), mental health practitioners (art. 163, the article for LMHCs and LMFTs), nurses (art. 139), physicians and physician assistants.

That list does not name licensed social workers or behavior analysts; they would instead be protected as covered individuals, subject to the bill's high-pay exclusion.

None of that is in force.

Everything turns on the three-part test from BDO Seidman:

• Legitimate interest. The restriction must be no greater than required to protect a legitimate interest of the employer. Naming that interest and drafting the clause to match it is the work — a restriction that reaches past the interest is the one that gets cut back.
• Hardship and the public. The covenant cannot impose undue hardship on the employee and cannot be injurious to the public. A clause that would leave a licensed clinician unable to work in their field at all raises both prongs — how a court would weigh your specific clause is a question for New York employment counsel.
• Time and area. Because our research found no New York statute regulating non-competes, we can point to no statutory cap on duration or geography — no fixed number of months or miles to draft to. Have New York employment counsel judge the specific clause rather than copying a duration or radius from a template or another state.

Partial enforcement is the feature to understand.

In BDO Seidman, the Court of Appeals held the entire covenant did not have to be invalidated; the court could enforce it to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest.

Overbreadth in New York is a correction rather than always a death sentence — but what survives is the court's version, not yours, so narrow drafting is still the safer strategy.

The verified New York case law in our research centers on non-competes, so how far a client non-solicit can reach in New York is a question for employment counsel rather than something our research settles with a formula.

What the pending legislation tells you is still instructive: even S9759, the far-reaching ban bill, says it would not limit agreements that bar disclosure of trade secrets, bar disclosure of confidential and proprietary client information, or prohibit solicitation of the employer's clients — as long as they do not otherwise restrict competition.

Client non-solicits and client-information confidentiality are the restrictions that bill would expressly preserve.

Employee non-solicits — barring a departing clinician from recruiting your staff — are not addressed by the material in our research on New York.

Treat them as a counsel question before you rely on one.

Client transitions can also carry obligations under professional ethics codes; our guide to non-solicitation clauses covers that backdrop and what other states allow.

• Draft to what your practice actually does. Karpinski shows a New York court holding a clinician's covenant to the employer's actual specialty. Describe the services honestly and tie the clause to them.
• Lean on client non-solicitation and confidentiality. Those are the protections even the pending ban bill would preserve — client non-solicits plus trade-secret and confidential client information restrictions, where the agreement does not otherwise restrict competition.
• Do not bank on judicial trimming. Partial enforcement helps, but the clause that survives a challenge is the court's version. Have New York employment counsel read the final wording before the offer goes out.
• Price training with repayment terms carefully. Where the worry is recouping supervised-hours training or credentialing costs, training repayment agreements are a separate tool with their own limits — and New York has reportedly enacted a "Trapped at Work Act" restricting stay-or-pay repayment terms, reported to take effect February 13, 2027 with a carve-out for tuition repayment for a transferable credential; the statute text was not verified for this page. Our guide to training repayment agreements explains the tool.
• Watch the bills, not the rumor. S4641 and S9759 sit in the Assembly Labor Committee as of October 7, 2026, and neither is law. If S9759 were enacted, it would bar non-competes for covered individuals and health related professionals — check the bill status before rewriting your template on the basis of a headline.
• Invest in keeping people. A covenant is not a retention strategy. For the practical work of keeping clinicians — caseloads, supervision, pay and career path — see our guide to clinician retention.