N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE Selection of Jurors
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 519 (2026)

Right of juror to be absent from employment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 519. Right of juror to be absent from employment. Any person who is
summoned to serve as a juror under the provisions of this article and
who notifies their employer to that effect prior to the commencement of
a term of service shall not, on account of absence from employment by
reason of such jury service, be subject to discharge or penalty. An
employer may, however, withhold wages of any such employee serving as a
juror during the period of such service; provided that an employer who
employs more than ten employees shall not withhold the first seventy-two
dollars of such juror's daily wages during the first three days of jury
service. Withholding of wages in accordance with this section shall not
be deemed a penalty. Violation of this section shall constitute a
criminal contempt of court punishable pursuant to section seven hundred
fifty of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 919 (N.Y. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 919 (N.Y. 1987). · cites it 2× “*337 Indeed, the Legislature has responded to this appropriate sensitivity by enacting numerous protections against abusive discharge and by prohibiting employers from discharging at-will employees for reasons contrary to public policy ( see , Judiciary Law § 519; Executive Law…”
Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “"Indeed, the Legislature has responded to this appropriate sensitivity by enacting numerous protections against abusive discharge and by prohibiting employers from discharging at-will employees for reasons contrary to public policy (see, Judiciary Law § 519; Executive Law § 296…”
Tomlinson v. Ward, 110 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “Judiciary Law § 519 states that anyone who serves as a juror and who notifies his employer may not be subject to discharge or penalty for the period absent while serving.”
Matter of Tomlinson v. Ward, 488 N.E.2d 114 (N.Y. 1985). “We add only that the extension of the probationary period, under the circumstances of this case, is not a penalty as contemplated by Judiciary Law § 519. Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.”
Horn v. New York Times, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “liation against an employee who objects to, or blows the whistle about, an employer’s violation of the Human Rights Law), Labor Law § 740 (retaliation against an employee who objects to, or blows the whistle about, an employer’s health and safety violations) or § 215 (any other…”
Gomariz v. Foote, Cone & Belding Commc'ns, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “The motion court, in dismissing the complaint, properly determined that Judiciary Law § 519, which makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a penalty of criminal contempt to dismiss an employee for serving on a jury but does not expressly provide for a private right of action, does…”
Di Blasi v. Traffax Traffic Network, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1094 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 4× “This litigation ensued, with plaintiff asserting causes of action for violation of Judiciary Law § 519, and wrongful/ retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policy contained in Judiciary Law § 500.”
Yanicki v. State, 174 Misc. 2d 149 (1997). “, 70 NY2d 268 [holding that there is no civil remedy for violation of General Business Law § 352-c, a penal provision]; Gomariz v Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, 228 AD2d 316 [holding that Judiciary Law § 519 making it a misdemeanor to fire an employee for serving on a…”
Arnold v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 70 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The alleged violation of an employee’s right to be absent from work for jury duty (Judiciary Law § 519) does not give rise to a private right of action (Gomariz v Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, 228 AD2d 316 [1996]).”
Schwartz v. Cuomo, 111 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “Petitioner argues that the extension of his probationary term, to reflect absences while on jury duty, was a “penalty” within the intendment of Judiciary Law § 519. We disagree. Respondents have explicit authority to extend a probationary term to reflect absences (4 NYCRR 4.”
Wieder v. Skala, 144 Misc. 2d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989). “"Indeed, the Legislature has responded to this appropriate sensitivity by enacting numerous protections against abusive discharge and by prohibiting employers from discharging at-will employees for reasons contrary to public policy (see, Judiciary Law § 519; Executive Law § 296…”
Starishevsky v. Hofstra Univ., 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 846 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). “, Judiciary Law § 519 which prohibits the discharge of an employee due to absence from employment for jury service; Executive Law § 296 (1) (e) which bars discharge of employees for opposing unlawful *154 discriminatory practices or for filing a complaint or participating in a…”
Show all 16 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.