New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 594 (2026)

Reduction and recovery of benefits and penalties for wilful false statement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 594. Reduction and recovery of benefits and penalties for wilful
false statement.  (1) A claimant who has wilfully made a false statement
or representation to obtain any benefit under the provisions of this
article shall forfeit benefits for at least the first one but not more
than the first twenty effective weeks following discovery of such
offense for which he or she otherwise would have been entitled to
receive benefits. Such penalty shall apply only once with respect to
each such offense.
  (2) For the purpose of subdivision four of section five hundred ninety
of this article, the claimant shall be deemed to have received benefits
for such forfeited effective weeks.
  (3) The penalty provided in this section shall not be confined to a
single benefit year but shall no longer apply in whole or in part after
the expiration of two years from the date of the final determination.
Such two-year period shall be tolled during the time period a claimant
has an appeal pending.
  (4) A claimant shall refund all moneys received because of such false
statement or representation and pay a civil penalty in an amount equal
to the greater of one hundred dollars or fifteen percent of the total
overpaid benefits determined pursuant to this section. The penalties
collected hereunder shall be deposited in the fund. The penalties
assessed under this subdivision shall apply and be assessed for any
benefits paid under federal unemployment and extended unemployment
programs administered by the department in the same manner as provided
in this article. The penalties in this section shall be in addition to
any penalties imposed under this chapter or any state or federal
criminal statute. No penalties or interest assessed pursuant to this
section may be deducted or withheld from benefits.
  (5) (a) Upon a determination based upon a willful false statement or
representation becoming final through exhaustion of appeal rights or
failure to exhaust hearing rights, the commissioner may recover the
amount found to be due by commencing a civil action, or by filing with
the county clerk of the county where the claimant resides the final
determination of the commissioner or the final decision by an
administrative law judge, the appeal board, or a court containing the
amount found to be due including interest and civil penalty. The
commissioner may only make such a filing with the county clerk when:
  (i) The claimant has responded to requests for information prior to a
determination and such requests for information notified the claimant of
his or her rights to a fair hearing as well as the potential
consequences of an investigation and final determination under this
section including the notice required by subparagraph (iii) of paragraph
(b) of this subdivision. Additionally if the claimant requested a fair
hearing or appeal subsequent to a determination, that the claimant was
present either in person or through electronic means at such hearing, or
subsequent appeal from which a final determination was rendered;
  (ii) The commissioner has made efforts to collect on such final
determination; and
  (iii) The commissioner has sent a notice, in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this subdivision, of intent to docket such final determination by
first class or certified mail, return receipt requested, ten days prior
to the docketing of such determination.
  (b) The notice required in subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision shall include the following:
  (i) That the commissioner intends to docket a final determination
against such claimant as a judgment;
  (ii) The total amount to be docketed; and
  (iii) Conspicuous language that reads as follows: "Once entered, a
judgment is good and can be used against you for twenty years, and your
money, including a portion of your paycheck and/or bank account, may be
taken. Also, a judgment will hurt your credit score and can affect your
ability to rent a home, find a job, or take out a loan."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Matter of Mikheil (Comm'r of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 04075 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
Matter of Mikheil (Comm'r of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 04075 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “Claimant's right to receive future benefits was reduced by eight days and a monetary penalty of $100 was imposed because he made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits ( see Labor Law § 594), and he was charged with recoverable overpayments of $504 in PUA benefits and…”
Matter of Roberson (Commr. of Labor), 142 A.D.3d 1259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “The determina *1260 tions charged her with a recoverable overpayment of the different benefits that she received and also imposed a forfeiture and civil penalties for her willful misrepresentations pursuant to Labor Law § 594. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge…”
Matter of Denes (Commr. of Labor), 147 A.D.3d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “ubstantial evidence also supports the Board’s factual determination that claimant made willful representations and false statements to obtain benefits when he certified for benefits, attesting that he had performed no work on days when he had provided services as a member of the…”
Matter of Guibord (Commr. of Labor), 147 A.D.3d 1137 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “determination finding claimant ineligible to receive benefits during the relevant time period due to a lack of total unemployment and, upon finding that claimant made false statements to obtain benefits, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $630 (see Labor Law § 597…”
Matter of Lefkow (Comm'r of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 05122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “Additionally, claimant's right to receive future benefits was reduced by 80 days and a monetary penalty was imposed ( see Labor Law § 594). Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence that claimant used an accomplice or a VPN…”
Matter of Kachmarik (Commr. of Labor), 138 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “The Department of Labor issued initial determinations that found claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed during that time period and charged her with a recoverable overpayment of the different benefits that she received and also imposed a…”
In re the Claim of Barbera, 28 A.D.3d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Upon claimant’s administrative appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted the determination of the administrative law judge, and claimant now appeals.”
In re Bernard, 53 A.D.3d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “The Board also determined that he had received $10,530 in recoverable payments and reduced his right to receive future benefits by 168 days pursuant to Labor Law § 594. Claimant now appeals. Whether a claimant is totally unemployed is an issue of fact for the Board to resolve…”
Matter of McCann (Commr. of Labor), 143 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the Board properly concluded that each of the five false certifications was a separate offense because each certification representing that claimant was available to work was a separate false statement made to obtain additional benefits for a different time period (see…”
In re the Claim of Small, 23 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 2× “In addition, claimant’s right to receive future benefits was reduced on the basis that she made willful false statements (see Labor Law § 594). Claimant’s sole argument on appeal is that, since she made full disclosures of her self-employment to the Department, her benefits are…”
Torres v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 321 F. Supp. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Labor Law § 594 (McKinney Supp.1970).”
In Re Maine, 32 B.R. 452 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1983). “See, N.Y. Labor Law § 594 (McKinney 1977). The State, therefore, is a “creditor” with a “claim” as those terms are defined by the Bankruptcy Act.”
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.