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

N.Y. Labor Law § 592 (2026)

Suspension of accumulation of benefit rights

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 592. Suspension of accumulation of benefit rights.  1. Industrial
controversy. (a) The accumulation of benefit rights by a claimant shall
be suspended during a period of one week beginning with the day after
such claimant lost their employment because of a strike or other
industrial controversy except for lockouts, including concerted activity
not authorized or sanctioned by the recognized or certified bargaining
agent of the claimant, and other concerted activity conducted in
violation of any existing collective bargaining agreement, in the
establishment in which such claimant was employed, except that benefit
rights may be accumulated before the expiration of such one week period
beginning with the day after such strike or other industrial controversy
was terminated.
  (b) Benefits shall not be suspended under this section if:
  (i) The employer hires a permanent replacement worker for the
employee's position. A replacement worker shall be presumed to be
permanent unless the employer certifies in writing that the employee
will be able to return to such employee's prior position upon conclusion
of the strike, in the event the strike terminates prior to the
conclusion of the employee's eligibility for benefit rights under this
chapter. In the event the employer does not permit such return after
such certification, the employee shall be entitled to recover any
benefits lost as a result of the one week suspension of benefits, and
the department may impose a penalty upon the employer of up to seven
hundred fifty dollars per employee per week of benefits lost. The
penalty collected shall be paid into the unemployment insurance control
fund established pursuant to section five hundred fifty-two-b of this
article; or
  (ii) The commissioner determines that the claimant:
  (A) is not employed by an employer that is involved in the industrial
controversy that caused such claimant's unemployment and is not
participating in the industrial controversy; or
  (B) is not in a bargaining unit involved in the industrial controversy
that caused such claimant's unemployment and is not participating in the
industrial controversy.
  2. Concurrent payments prohibited. No weeks of total unemployment or
partial unemployment shall be deemed to occur in any week with respect
to which a claimant has received or is seeking unemployment benefits
under an unemployment compensation law of any other state or of the
United States, provided that this provision shall not apply if the
appropriate agency of such other state or of the United States finally
determines that he is not entitled to such unemployment benefits.
  3. Terms of suspension. No waiting period may be served during a
suspension period.
  The suspension of accumulation of benefit rights shall not be
terminated by subsequent employment of the claimant irrespective of when
the claim is filed except as provided in subdivision one of this section
and shall not be confined to a single benefit year.
  A "week" as used in subdivision one of this section means any seven
consecutive calendar days.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: In re the Claims of Goodman, 731 N.E.2d 600 (NY 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Claims of Goodman, 731 N.E.2d 600 (NY 2000). · cites it 3× “In their view, only Labor Law § 592 applies, which suspends unemployment insurance benefits for a period of seven weeks in the event of a strike.”
Albuquerque-Phoenix Express, Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 544 P.2d 1161 (N.M. 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 1262 (West 1972); N.Y. Labor Law § 592 (McKinney 1965) (seven week waiting period); Colo.”
In re the Claim of Reardon, 16 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 2× “He was initially awarded benefits, but they were subsequently suspended on the ground that he lost his employment due to an industrial controversy within the meaning of Labor Law § 592 (1). He was also charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and his right to receive…”
In re the Claim of Les Juncaj, 23 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination suspending benefits on the ground that claimant lost his employment due to an industrial controversy (see Labor Law § 592 [1]; Matter of Reardon [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 859, 860 [2005]).”
In re the Claims Falco-Ward, 129 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “Labor Law § 592 (1) provides for the suspension of benefits to employees, including nonparticipants, whose employment is curtailed due to a strike (see, Matter of Drassenower [Levine] 48 AD2d 957 , appeal denied 38 NY2d 709 , appeal dismissed 38 NY2d 771 , cert denied 431 US 953…”
Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 475 F.2d 449 (1st Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Labor Law § 592 (1) (McKinney 1965).”
In re the Claim of Miller, 183 A.D.2d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “In any event, the evidence in the record amply supports the conclusion that claimant’s employment was curtailed as a result of a strike called by the union of which he was a member.”
In re the Claims of Goodman, 259 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 2× “After claimants had been on strike for seven weeks, they filed for unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 592 (1). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimants were ineligible for benefits because, despite the absence of formal…”
Matter of D'Altorio (Clare Rose, Inc.--Comm'r of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 4249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 6× “Appeals from 104 decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 18, 2018, which ruled that the suspension-of-benefits period set forth in Labor Law § 592 (1) did not apply and that claimants were therefore eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits…”
Matter of Parron (Comm'r of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 1696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 3× “Claimant did not thereafter report for work until the strike ended on June 1, 2016.”
Matter of Panday (RLRG & Assoc. LLC--Comm'r of Labor), 2025 NY Slip Op 07059 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025). “Having found that the employer made an offer of other employment to claimant and that claimant [*2]did not accept that offer, the Board was required to address the issue — raised before it — of whether that offer of employment was suitable for claimant and, if so, whether it was…”
In re the Claims of Goodman, 290 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “After seven weeks or more of unemployment due to the strike (see, Labor Law § 592 [1] [suspending benefits for seven weeks if unemployment is due to a strike]), claimants filed for unemployment insurance benefits in late May and early June 1996.”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 592(1) — 1 case
Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 475 F.2d 449 (1st Cir. 1973). “N.Y. Labor Law § 592 (1) (McKinney 1965).”
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.