New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 160 (2026)

Hours to constitute a day's work

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 160. Hours to constitute a day's work. Unless otherwise provided by
law, the following number of hours shall constitute a legal day's work:
  1. For street surface or elevated railroad employees as affected by
section one hundred and sixty-four, ten consecutive hours, including
one-half hour for dinner.
  2. For employees engaged in the operation of steam or electric
surface, subway or elevated railroads where the mileage system of
running trains is not in use, except those employees affected by section
one hundred and sixty-six, ten hours, performed within twelve
consecutive hours.
  3. For all other employees, except those engaged in farm work and
those affected by subdivision four of section two hundred twenty of this
chapter, eight hours.
  This subdivision shall not prevent an agreement for overwork at an
increased compensation, except upon work by or for the state or a
municipal corporation, or by contractors or subcontractors therewith,
and except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Rocha v. Bakhter Afghan Halal Kababs, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 337 (E.D.N.Y 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rocha v. Bakhter Afghan Halal Kababs, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 337 (E.D.N.Y 2014). · cites it 2× “May 27, 2014) (“NYLL’s overtime provision specifies that eight hours constitutes a ‘legal day’s work,’ N.Y. Lab. L. § 160 , and that ‘[a]n employer shall pay an employee for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate ____” (citing 12 N.”

Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 2d 114 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “Finally, Plaintiffs allege a violation of the New York Labor Law’s overtime provision, which specifies that eight hours constitutes a “legal day’s work,” N.Y. Labor Law § 160 , and that “an employer shall pay an employee for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times the…”

Noble v. 93 Univ. Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “See N.Y. Labor Law § 160 (deeming eight hours to be a "legal day’s work" for employees other than those specifically exempted, such as street surface or elevated railroad employees; or employees engaged in the operation of steam or electric surface, subway, or elevated…”

Scholtisek v. Eldre Corp., 229 F.R.D. 381 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). “§ 207 (a)(1); N.Y. Lab. L. § 160 ; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.”

Ellis v. Edward D, Jones & Co., Lp, 527 F. Supp. 2d 439 (W.D. Pa. 2007). “The Court does acknowledge, however, that N.Y. Lab. Law § 160 defines eight hours as a "legal day’s work” in almost all cases, and allows "an agreement for overwork at an increased compensation” in some circumstances.”

Dauphin v. Chestnut Ridge Transp., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “§ 207 , and New York law, see N.Y. Labor Law § 160 ; N.Y. Comp.Codes R.”

Mendez v. Radec Corp., 232 F.R.D. 78 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). “§ 207 (a)(1); N.Y. Lab. L. § 160 ; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.”

Noble v. 93 Univ. Place Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 207 (a)(1); N.Y. Labor Law § 160 ; 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2.”

In re Smith, 8 A.D.3d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “Claimant’s assertion that the Board’s finding is inconsistent with Labor Law § 160 (3), which generally defines a full day’s work as eight hours, does not compel a contrary conclusion as that provision is not part of the unemployment insurance law (see Labor Law art 18), which…”

Kahn v. Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc., 331 F. Supp. 2d 115 (E.D.N.Y 2004). “§ 207 (a)(1); N.Y. Labor Law § 160 . However, employers are exempt from this overtime pay requirement if the employee is “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.”

Perez v. G & P Auto Wash Inc., 930 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “2003) (noting that both statutes “entitle employees to time-and-a-half overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week”).”

Gallegos v. Brandeis Sch., 189 F.R.D. 256 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “2d 435, 437 (2d Dep’t 1985); see N.Y. Lab. Law § 160 . Indeed, to assert any substantive claim for wages under article 6, a plaintiff must have an enforceable contractual right to those wages.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

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.