New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 600 (2026)

Effect of retirement payments

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 600. Effect of retirement payments. 1. Reduction of benefit rate.
(a) The benefit rate of a claimant who is receiving a governmental or
other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or any other similar
periodic payment which is based on his previous work, shall be reduced
as hereinafter provided, if such payment is made under a plan maintained
or contributed to by his base period employer and, except for payments
made under the social security act or the railroad retirement act of
1974, the claimant's employment with, or remuneration from, such
employer after the beginning of the base period affected his eligibility
for, or increased the amount of, such pension, retirement or retired
pay, annuity, or other similar periodic payment.
  (b) The claimant's benefit rate shall be reduced by the largest number
of whole dollars which is not more than the pro-rated weekly amount of
such payment. If the claimant was the sole contributor for the pension,
retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic payment,
no reduction shall apply.
  (c) If, at the time benefits are payable, it has not been established
that the claimant will be receiving such pension, retirement or retired
pay, annuity or other payment, benefits due shall be paid without a
reduction, subject to review within the period and under the conditions
as provided in subdivisions three and four of section five hundred
ninety-seven with respect to retroactive payment of remuneration.
  (d) For the purposes of this section, the terms "pension or retirement
payment" and "governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay,
annuity, or any other similar periodic payment which is based on
previous work" shall not include payments made from a qualified trust to
an eligible retirement plan under the terms and conditions specified in
section four hundred two of the internal revenue code for federal income
tax purposes, such payments commonly known as eligible rollover
distributions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: In re the Claim of Busman, 172 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Claim of Busman, 172 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 5× “Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 6, 1990, which reduced claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7) and charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.”

In re the Claim of Felice, 24 A.D.3d 992 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 2× “The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and reduced her benefit rate from $405 to zero effective December 29, 2003 pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7).”

In re the Claim of Salerno, 279 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Furthermore, inasmuch as there is no dispute that the employer fully funded his pension, claimant’s benefit rate was properly reduced (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]). Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.”

In re the Claim of Ziegler, 28 A.D.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 4× “It was later determined, however, that his benefit should be reduced to zero pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7) (b). That determination was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, prompting this appeal.”

In re the Claim of Cooney, 2 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “Upon appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remitted the matter for a hearing to further develop the record on this issue.”

In re Claim of Hall, 162 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · cites it 3× “By initial determination, claimant’s benefit rate of $180 per week was reduced to $52 to reflect an offset of claimant’s pension amount pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7). An Administrative Law Judge held that claimant’s benefit rate should have been reduced by only the amount of…”

In re Hosenfeld, 280 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Consequently, based upon his prorated weekly pension benefit, claimant’s weekly benefit rate was reduced to zero effective May 1, 1999 pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7). Although claimant disclosed his receipt of pension benefits on May 11, 1999, the overpayment of benefits is…”

In re the Claim of Sherbell, 133 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 7× “Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 10, 1986, which reduced claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7) (a). "• Claimant’s eight years of employment pursuant to written contracts was terminated because he…”

Claim of Mareno v. Roberts, 113 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 4× “Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 22, 1984, which ruled that claimant’s benefit rate be reduced to zero pursuant to the provisions of Labor Law § 600 (7) and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.”

In re the Claim of De Voe, 193 A.D.2d 1042 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Because the weekly equivalent of claimant’s pension exceeded the $300 benefit rate, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reduced claimant’s benefit rate to zero pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7). We reject claimant’s contention that this statute infringes upon his right to…”

In re the Claim of Gold, 282 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant’s weekly benefit rate to zero (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]; Matter of Scheiner [Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 658 ).”

In re the Claim of Rolland, 232 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 3× “Based upon claimant’s receipt of this lump-sum payment, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reduced his unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 600 (7). Claimant contends that because he was not eligible for retirement and rolled the lump-sum payment over…”

Show all 50 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.