New York Trade Secret Laws: Common Law & DTSA

New York has not adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act; its state civil trade secret protection rests on common law, anchored by the six-factor test from Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b, as applied by New York courts. State criminal statutes separately protect secret scientific material. Common-law misappropriation claims normally have a three-year deadline under CPLR § 214(4), while a related fiduciary-duty claim seeking equitable relief may have six years under CPLR § 213(1).

This guide is part of our Trade Secret Laws by State series.

Information last verified on 2026-06-25. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice. For guidance on a specific situation involving New York trade secret law, consult a lawyer licensed in New York. See also our Trade Secret Laws by State hub for additional state guides.

Does New York have a trade secret law?

New York has not enacted a civil Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Its state civil trade secret framework derives from common law, while criminal statutes separately protect secret scientific material. New York courts have consistently recognized trade secret claims under principles drawn from the Restatement of Torts § 757 and its progeny. The leading New York authority is Ashland Management Inc. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (1993), in which the Court of Appeals confirmed that a trade secret in New York is "any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." Courts apply the six Restatement comment b factors, described in the next section, to determine whether a specific item qualifies. New York has no UTSA displacement provision. Plaintiffs in New York may bring related claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, or unfair competition alongside a trade secret claim, subject to the usual rules against duplicative recovery theories.

What counts as a trade secret under New York common law?

New York courts evaluate trade secret status by applying the six factors from Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b:

1. The extent to which the information is known outside the claimant's business;
2. The extent to which it is known to employees and others inside the business;
3. The extent of measures taken to guard the secrecy of the information;
4. The value of the information to the business and to its competitors;
5. The amount of effort or money expended by the business in developing the information; and
6. The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.

No single factor is determinative; courts weigh all six together. Information that scores poorly on most factors (for example, material widely known in the industry, unprotected by any confidentiality measures, and easily duplicated) is unlikely to qualify regardless of its commercial value to the owner. Courts have protected technical processes, formulas, source code, client lists containing non-public contact information, and business strategies that satisfy most of the six factors.

To succeed on a trade secret claim under New York law, the plaintiff must establish both that the information qualifies as a trade secret under the Restatement analysis AND that the defendant used or disclosed it either through breach of a confidential relationship or by improper means such as theft, bribery, or misrepresentation. Mere possession or exposure to the information is not enough; the manner of acquisition or use is a required element of the claim. Reverse engineering and independent development are not actionable.

Remedies and the limitations period in New York

For New York common-law trade secret claims, civil remedies flow from equity and tort principles:

• Injunctive relief: Courts of equity may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities in its favor.
• Compensatory damages: A prevailing plaintiff may recover actual losses caused by the misappropriation, including lost profits and diminished business value attributable to the wrongful disclosure or use.
• Disgorgement: Courts may require a defendant to disgorge profits gained through wrongful use of the trade secret, preventing unjust enrichment where compensatory damages do not fully make the plaintiff whole.
• Punitive damages: Available in New York tort claims when the defendant's conduct is particularly egregious; courts apply this remedy selectively in trade secret disputes and require a showing of intentional, malicious, or outrageous conduct.

Common-law trade secret misappropriation claims normally have a three-year period under CPLR § 214(4). The period runs from actionable wrongful disclosure or use, without a general discovery rule. Continued commercial use while the information remains confidential may support successive claims; public disclosure that destroys the secret does not leave a continuing-use claim. In Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v. Svane, Inc., the court refused to dismiss a claim as untimely because the alleged continued confidential use could establish a continuing tort.

A related breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim seeking equitable relief may instead carry six years under CPLR § 213(1), as the remedy-dependent distinction discussed in Cusimano v. Schnurr explains. This does not mean that adding an injunction request automatically extends every misappropriation claim. Counsel should evaluate the actual claim, remedy and accrual facts promptly.

How the federal DTSA applies in New York

Because New York relies on common law for its state civil trade secret framework, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, is especially significant for New York businesses. Since May 2016, the DTSA has provided a federal civil claim for misappropriation of trade secrets that relate to interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not require any state statute (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b) creates an independent federal civil cause of action that is not conditioned on a state having adopted the UTSA; § 1838 separately preserves other state-law remedies from being displaced by the DTSA), and New York plaintiffs may plead both common-law and DTSA claims in a single federal court action.

Key DTSA considerations for New York businesses include:

• A three-year federal limitations period from actual or reasonably discoverable misappropriation (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)); New York common-law accrual follows different rules.
• Ex parte seizure orders to prevent further propagation of the secret in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2)), a tool not available under New York common law.
• Exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award and attorney fees for willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 1836(b)(3)).
• Whistleblower immunity: the DTSA immunizes individuals who disclose trade secrets to government officials or attorneys in connection with a suspected legal violation (§ 1833(b)(1)). Employers must include notice of this immunity in confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016 (§ 1833(b)(3)). Omitting the notice forfeits the right to claim exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA.

New York also has criminal protections: Penal Law § 165.07 makes unauthorized tangible reproduction of secret scientific material a class E felony when done with intent to appropriate its use, without a right or reasonable ground to believe one exists. Section 155.00(6) defines the protected scientific or technical material, and stealing it is fourth-degree grand larceny, also a class E felony, under § 155.30(3).

Federal criminal exposure may also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832, for trade secret theft tied to foreign governments or interstate and foreign commerce.

This article provides general legal information about New York trade secret law as of 2026-06-25. It is not legal advice. Laws can change; consult a lawyer licensed in New York before taking action based on this information.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• New Jersey Trade Secret Laws
• New Mexico Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.