N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Labor / ARTICLE Unemployment Insurance Law / TITLE Administration
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 534 (2026)

Appeal board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 534. Appeal board.  The appeal board is hereby continued. Such board
shall consist of five salaried members, not more than three of whom
shall be adherents of the same political party. One of the members of
the board shall be designated as chairman by the governor. The governor
shall appoint or reappoint members for terms of six years. Vacancies
shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the unexpired term. A
member of the board may be removed by the governor for cause, after a
hearing.
  Any hearing, inquiry, or investigation required or authorized to be
conducted or made by the board may be conducted or made by any
individual member thereof, and the order, decision, or determination of
such member shall be deemed the order, decision, or determination of the
board from the date of filing thereof in the department, unless the
board on its own motion or on application duly made to it modify or
rescind such order, decision, or determination.
  The board shall establish and maintain a current index, by topic, of
the principles of law established by the decisions rendered by the board
and the courts concerning matters arising under this article. Such index
shall cite all appropriate authority which supports such principles and,
where appropriate, all conflicting authority. Such index shall also
contain a glossary of technical and statutory terms commonly used by the
board in its decisions.  Copies of such index shall be open for public
inspection and examination, and shall be made available at all locations
where unemployment insurance hearings, authorized or mandated by section
six hundred twenty of this chapter, are conducted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: In re Charles A. Field Delivery Serv., Inc., 488 N.E.2d 1223 (N.Y. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Charles A. Field Delivery Serv., Inc., 488 N.E.2d 1223 (N.Y. 1985). “Legislative awareness of the policy considerations involved is evident from Labor Law § 534, the third unnumbered paragraph of which requires that the Board "maintain a current index, by topic, of the principles of law established by *520 the decisions rendered by the board and…”
Cappelli v. Sweeney, 167 Misc. 2d 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 6× “Petitioners in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/ declaratory judgment action are members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board), a five-member entity within the State Labor Department created originally by Laws of 1935 (ch 468, § 1) and…”
MacGilfrey v. Pugh, 217 A.D.2d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1995). · cites it 4× “In addition to arguing the merits of her claim, petitioner also argued that the Board denied her procedural due process by failing to comply with the index provision of Labor Law § 534. Before the Board reached a decision, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78…”
In re the Claim of Boone, 245 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1997). “Labor Law § 534 provides that the Board may rescind its decisions on its own motion or on application duly made (see, 12 NYCRR 463.”
In re the Claim of Kretchmer, 8 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004). “We reject claimant’s contention that more than two members of the Board were required to consider the case on reconsideration, as the controlling statute makes clear that even one of the Board’s members may conduct “[a]ny hearing, inquiry, or investigation required or authorized…”
In re Bartenders Unlimited, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2001). “…bodies to exercise the adjudicatory authority delegated by the statutes (compare, Labor Law §§ 100, 101, with Labor Law §§ 534, 621). Accordingly, we conclude that the IBA and the Board can each determine which factors it considers most appropriate in reaching its…”
In re the Claim of Leonetti, 10 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004). “The Board may, as it did here, reconsider a decision upon its own motion (see Labor Law § 534; 12 NYCRR 463.6), and there is no requirement that it be composed of members other than those who made the original decision (see 12 NYCRR 460.”
In re the Claim of Prairie, 265 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1999). “Finally, we are unpersuaded by claimant’s argument that the Board was without authority to reopen a prior decision on its own motion and remit for a further hearing (see, Labor Law § 534). Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr.”
In re the Claim of Spencer, 83 A.D.3d 1171 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011). · cites it 2× “It is well settled that the Board has continuing jurisdiction to reopen a matter on its own motion in order to consider previously undisclosed evidence, even if a party’s application to reopen would be untimely, and we perceive no abuse of discretion in its decision to do so…”
In re the Claim of Ford, 21 A.D.3d 1227 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005). “Claimant, who points to no new evidence not already fully considered by the Board but, rather, bases her contentions on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Board’s continuing jurisdictional authority to reopen prior decisions (see Labor Law § 534; 12 NYCRR 463.6; Matter of…”
In re the Claim of Palmatier, 63 A.D.3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009). “We also find without merit claimant’s contention that the decision was improperly rendered by only one member of the Board, as this practice is specifically permitted pursuant to Labor Law § 534 (see Matter of Pokigo [Superior Sales & Salvage—Hartnett], 156 AD2d 855, 856 [1989];…”
In re the Claim of McManamon, 267 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1999). “Although it appears that those decisions were clearly erroneous, they were properly served and claimant never appealed from them (see, Labor Law § 624).”
Show all 29 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.