New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. General Business Law § 763 (2026)
Duties of operators
✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 763. Duties of operators. 1. Every operator shall participate in a one-call notification system. 2. Upon receipt of the notification provided for by this article either directly from the excavator or from the one-call notification system and pursuant to the rules and regulations adopted by the public service commission pursuant to section one hundred nineteen-b of the public service law, an operator shall advise the excavator in a timely manner of those of its underground facilities that will be affected by the proposed excavation or demolition. 3. The operator shall accurately and with due care designate within a reasonable period of time the location of its underground facilities in the manner and during the time period set forth in the rules and regulations adopted by the public service commission pursuant to section one hundred nineteen-b of the public service law. 4. Any operator which performs or contracts for the excavation of underground facilities shall require the excavator to have completed the training and education program provided by the one-call notification system pursuant to this article or any other provider authorized by the public service commission to administer such training and education program. Such training and education program shall be made available in-person and online. The cost of such training and education program shall not exceed twenty-five dollars and shall not be required more than once per five year period. In the case of an operator subject to the jurisdiction of the public service commission, a training and education program that is subject to audit by the department of public service shall also satisfy the requirement herein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Watral & Sons, Inc. v. OC Riverhead 58, LLC, 34 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).
Watral & Sons, Inc. v. OC Riverhead 58, LLC, 34 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). “Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was free from negligence in the happening of the second incident. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, our conclusion that the plaintiff was negligent because it failed to properly shore and brace the excavation as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.