
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.com
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.com
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable.
In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same time, courts and regulators are increasingly scrutinizing how these agreements are used, particularly in employment-related contexts.
A non-disclosure agreement is a contract that requires one or more parties to protect confidential information shared during a business relationship.
NDAs are widely used across:
The purpose is consistent: to prevent the misuse or disclosure of sensitive information. However, under New York NDA requirements, these agreements must be narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests.
While NDAs should be customized for each situation, most agreements include several core provisions:
Generic templates often fail to reflect New York NDA requirements, making regular review and customization essential.
New York courts generally enforce NDAs that are reasonable in scope and duration.
Agreements are more likely to be upheld when they:
Courts are less likely to enforce NDAs that attempt to restrict disclosure of information that is public, widely known, or unrelated to competitive harm.
New York law also limits the use of NDAs in certain contexts. For example, agreements cannot prevent individuals from reporting unlawful conduct or participating in government investigations. Statutory restrictions also apply to NDAs in settlement agreements involving discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claims.
NDAs and non-compete agreements serve different purposes, but the distinction is increasingly important.
If an NDA is drafted too broadly, it may function as a de facto non-compete. In those cases, courts may decline to enforce the agreement. Businesses should ensure that NDAs focus on protecting sensitive information rather than restricting lawful competition.
Overly broad or outdated agreements can create significant risk.
Potential issues include:
An unenforceable NDA may also create a false sense of security, leaving sensitive information effectively unprotected.
To be enforceable, an NDA must protect a legitimate business interest and be reasonable in scope and duration. Under New York NDA requirements, courts will not uphold agreements that are overly broad or attempt to restrict disclosure of information that is public or not competitively sensitive.
No. New York law prohibits NDAs from restricting individuals from reporting unlawful conduct, cooperating with government investigations, or participating in regulatory proceedings. Agreements that attempt to impose these limitations are unlikely to be enforceable.
The duration of an NDA must be reasonable and tied to the nature of the information being protected. While trade secrets may justify longer or indefinite protection, most business information is subject to more limited timeframes under New York NDA requirements.
An NDA protects confidential information, while a non-compete restricts a person’s ability to work for competitors. If an NDA is drafted too broadly, it may be treated as a non-compete and may not be enforced under New York law.
Non-disclosure agreements remain an essential tool for protecting sensitive business information, but they must be carefully structured to comply with New York NDA requirements.
If you have any questions about how to best protect your confidential business information or need assistance drafting a nondisclosure agreement, we encourage you to contact a member of Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Corporate Transactions & Business Law Group.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Business mediation is a confidential, voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps companies negotiate a resolution to a commercial dispute without going to trial. Because working with a mediator is very different from litigating in the courtroom, it is important to understand how commercial mediation works, when it makes sense for your dispute, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The five most common causes of construction defect litigation are design defects, substandard materials, workmanship defects, code violations, and subsurface defects. Because these flaws can compromise a building’s integrity, functionality, or safety, they frequently lead to disputes involving multiple parties and high financial stakes. Key takeaways: What is Construction Defect Litigation? Construction litigation is complex, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Author: Paul Grossman

New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!