New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 520 (2026)

Base period

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 520. Base period.  A claimant's "base period" is one of the
following:
  1. For the purpose of subdivision one of section five hundred
twenty-seven of this article, the term base period shall mean the first
four of the last five completed calendar quarters ending with the week
immediately preceding the filing of a valid original claim.
  2.  For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section
five hundred twenty-seven of this article, the term base period shall
mean the last four completed calendar quarters ending with the week
immediately preceding the filing of a valid original claim.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Matter of Restrepo (Comm'r of Labor), 2023 NY Slip Op 03891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Restrepo (Comm'r of Labor), 2023 NY Slip Op 03891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · cites it 3× “Claimant's base period under the basic condition covered the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first, second and third quarters of 2019 (October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) ( see Labor Law § 520 [1]). Claimant's base period under the alternate condition covered the first,…”

Matter of Kelly (Commr. of Labor), 145 A.D.3d 1306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “* As claimant’s wages for the other three quarters did not equal or exceed $4,620 for either the base period or alternate base period, claimant’s total earnings did not equal or exceed IV2 times his high calendar quarter earnings (see Labor Law §§ 520, 527). Claimant contends…”

In re the Claim of Sotomayor, 34 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “During her base period, which covered the period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 (see Labor Law § 520 [1]), she received $7,081.”

Matter of Pickton (Commr. of Labor), 127 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). “The foregoing evidence supports the Board’s determination, and we reject Priority Assist’s contention that it contradicted either the Board’s informal guidelines or its prior decisions.”

In re the Claim of Strauch, 193 A.D.2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Although he was initially ruled eligible for benefits, upon further administrative review it was determined that because he did not have sufficient weeks and earnings in covered employment in the 52-week period preceding the filing of his claim (see, Labor Law §§ 520, 527 [1])…”

In re the Claim of Nieblas, 21 A.D.3d 1193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant did not have sufficient earnings in his base period or an alternative base period to qualify to file a valid original claim for benefits, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Labor Law §§ 520, 527; Matter of…”

In re the Claim of Fiorino, 34 A.D.3d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Initially, we note that claimant’s base period covered the period from April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005 and his alternate base period covered the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 (see Labor Law § 520 [1], [2]). However, because he did not earn $1,600 during any…”

In re the Claim of Abramowitz, 156 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “Claimant maintains that the Board correctly compared her 1983 base period earnings, that is, "the period of fifty-two consecutive weeks ending on the Sunday immediately preceding [her] filing of [her] valid original claim” (Labor Law § 520), *840 on September 3, 1984, an amount…”

Matter of Jablonski (Commr. of Labor), 126 A.D.3d 1224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 2× “For the basic condition, the base period covers the first four of the last five calendar quarters immediately preceding the filing of the claim (see Labor Law § 520 [1]). For the alternate condition, the base period covers the last four calendar quarters immediately preceding…”

In re the Claim of Walker, 151 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “Thereafter, claimant relocated to another State and did not file a benefit claim until February 15, 1988, establishing a base period from February 15, 1987 through February 14, 1988 (see, Labor Law § 520). Finding that claimant had only 11 weeks of covered employment, the…”

In re the Claim of Conklin, 262 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). “Although plaintiff’s benefit rate was not calculated with the inclusion of his remuneration from Washington Street, the two months that claimant worked for Washington Street are properly includable in his “base period” (see, Labor Law § 520). Regardless of whether claimant’s…”

In re the Claim of Iusuf, 305 A.D.2d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “claimant had covered employment during only one calendar quarter of the base period (from January 2001 through December 2001) and during only one calendar quarter of the alternate base period (from April 2001 through March 2002) rather than during the requisite two calendar…”

Show all 26 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.