New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 162 (2026)

Time allowed for meals

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 162. Time allowed for meals. 1. Every person employed in or in
connection with a factory shall be allowed at least sixty minutes for
the noon day meal.
  2. Every person employed in or in connection with a mercantile or
other establishment or occupation coming under the provisions of this
chapter shall be allowed at least thirty minutes for the noon day meal,
except as in this chapter otherwise provided. The noon day meal period
is recognized as extending from eleven o'clock in the morning to two
o'clock in the afternoon.  An employee who works a shift of more than
six hours which extends over the noon day meal period is entitled to at
least thirty minutes off within that period for the meal period.
  3. Every person employed for a period or shift starting before eleven
o'clock in the morning and continuing later than seven o'clock in the
evening shall be allowed an additional meal period of at least twenty
minutes between five and seven o'clock in the evening.
  4. Every person employed for a period or shift of more than six hours
starting between the hours of one o'clock in the afternoon and six
o'clock in the morning, shall be allowed at least sixty minutes for a
meal period when employed in or in connection with a factory, and
forty-five minutes for a meal period when employed in or in connection
with a mercantile or other establishment or occupation coming under the
provisions of this chapter, at a time midway between the beginning and
end of such employment.
  5. The commissioner may permit a shorter time to be fixed for meal
periods than hereinbefore provided. The permit therefor shall be in
writing and shall be kept conspicuously posted in the main entrance of
the establishment. Such permit may be revoked at any time.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015). “See N.Y. Lab. Law § 162 . Plaintiffs also alleged that Cannon had a policy of not reimbursing its employees for uniforms and not paying its employees laundry fees as was then required by N.”

Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “(the “FLSA”); New York State Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 162 (2), 195 et seq. (“NYSLL”); New York state labor regulations, N.”

Consol. Rail Corp. v. Hudacs, 223 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 5× “The yardmasters, through their representative, the United Transportation Union (hereinafter UTU), filed a complaint with respondent Commissioner of Labor alleging that petitioner failed to provide them with a meal period as required by Labor Law § 162. As a consequence, the…”

Chen v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 2d 269 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “While this is not a misstatement of the holding of that case, Sheffield concerned the employment of minors, an offense formerly found under N.Y. Labor Law § 162 , which is irrelevant to this case.”

Carrube v. New York City Transit Auth., 291 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, there is no implied private right of action for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 162 and 166. When statutes are silent on whether a private right of action exists the court must determine if such a right may be fairly implied (see,…”

Hill v. City of New York, 136 F. Supp. 3d 304 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “N.Y. Lab. Law § 162 . Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action alleges that the City Defendants violated New York Labor Law § 162 (“§ 162”) by requiring 911 Operators to answer and dispatch calls during their meal breaks.”

Sosnowy v. A. Perri Farms, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “In addition, the Plaintiff contends that certain deductions were inappropriately made from his wages on days when he was late to work in violation of Labor Law § 193 and that the Defendants failed to provide adequate break time in violation of Labor Law § 162(2). The Plaintiff…”

Hinterberger v. Catholic Health Sys., 299 F.R.D. 22 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). “See N.Y. Lab. Law § 162 . Directives or policies that notify employees of their legal entitlement to a meal break, and to compensation if they are “suffered or permitted” to work during the meal period, are, in this Court’s view, *45 readily distinguished from prohibitions that…”

Gordon v. Kaleida Health, 299 F.R.D. 380 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). “See N.Y. LAB. LAW § 162 . Directives or policies that notify employees of their legal entitlement to a meal break, and to compensation if they are “suffered or permittee!” to work during the meal period, are, in this Court’s view, readily distinguished from prohibitions that cap…”

Capital Newspapers Div.—The Hearst Corp. v. Hartnett, 30 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 6× “Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals which found petitioner guilty of violating Labor Law §162. One hour can mean different things…”

Chen v. Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). · cites it 2× “Failure to Provide a Meal Break Chen also seeks damages for Defendants’ failure to afford her meal breaks pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law § 162 , which provides that “[a]n employee who works a shift of more than six hours which extends over the noon day meal period is entitled to at…”

Salahuddin v. Craver, 2018 NY Slip Op 5429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 2× “It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of the motion with respect to the Labor Law §§ 162 (2), 195 (5), and 198 counterclaims and dismissing those counterclaims, denying that part of the cross motion with…”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— N.Y. Labor Law § 162(2) — 1 case

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.