New York § 860-C Exceptions

New York Statutes

§ 860-C — Exceptions

New York § 860-C

Law LABLabor

Art. 25-ANew York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

This text of New York § 860-C (Exceptions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

N.Y. Labor § 860-C (2026).

Text

§ 860-c. Exceptions.

1.In the case of a plant closing, an employer is\nnot required to comply with the notice requirement in subdivision one of\nsection eight hundred sixty-b of this article if:\n (a)(i) at the time the notice would have been required, the employer\nwas actively seeking capital or business; and\n (ii) the capital or business sought, if obtained, would have enabled\nthe employer to avoid or postpone the relocation or termination; and\n (iii) the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving\nthe notice required by subdivision one of section eight hundred sixty-b\nof this article would have precluded the employer from obtaining the\nneeded capital or business;\n (b) the need for a notice was not reasonably foreseeable at the time\nthe notice would have be

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

§ 860-c. Exceptions. 1. In the case of a plant closing, an employer is\nnot required to comply with the notice requirement in subdivision one of\nsection eight hundred sixty-b of this article if:\n (a)(i) at the time the notice would have been required, the employer\nwas actively seeking capital or business; and\n (ii) the capital or business sought, if obtained, would have enabled\nthe employer to avoid or postpone the relocation or termination; and\n (iii) the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving\nthe notice required by subdivision one of section eight hundred sixty-b\nof this article would have precluded the employer from obtaining the\nneeded capital or business;\n (b) the need for a notice was not reasonably foreseeable at the time\nthe notice would have been required;\n (c) the plant closing is of a temporary facility or the plant closing\nor mass layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project\nor undertaking, and the affected employees were hired with the\nunderstanding that their employment was limited to the duration of the\nfacility or project or undertaking;\n (d) the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural\ndisaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or drought; or\n (e) the closing or mass layoff constitutes a strike or constitutes a\nlockout not intended to evade the requirements of this article. Nothing\nin this article shall require an employer to serve written notice when\npermanently replacing a person who is deemed to be an economic striker\nunder the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). Nothing\nin this article shall be deemed to validate or invalidate any judicial\nor administrative ruling relating to the hiring of permanent\nreplacements for economic strikers under the National Labor Relations\nAct.\n 2. An employer unable to provide the notice otherwise required by this\narticle in a timely fashion as a result of circumstances described in\nsubdivision one of this section, shall provide as much notice as is\npracticable and at that time shall provide a brief statement of the\nbasis for reducing the notification period.\n