New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 620 (2026)

Referees' hearings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 620. Referees' hearings.  1. Disputed claims for benefits. (a) A
claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination of his or her
claim for benefits or any other party, including any employer whose
employer account percentage might be affected by such determination may,
within thirty days after the mailing or personal delivery of notice of
such determination, request a hearing.  The referee may extend the time
fixed for requesting a hearing, upon evidence that the physical
condition or mental incapacity of the claimant prevented the claimant
from filing an appeal within thirty days of the initial determination.
Any employer whose employer account percentage might be affected by such
determination, irrespective of whether or not such employer was a party
to a hearing brought hereunder, shall have access to all records of any
hearing brought hereunder by any party relating to such determination,
provided, however, that those records shall be subject to redaction or
shall be withheld in accordance with applicable federal or state
statutory and regulatory requirements governing information
confidentiality and personal privacy, including, but not limited to,
article six and article six-A of the public officers law.
  (b) When the initial determination of a claim for benefits, upon which
a hearing has been requested, involves the question whether any person
is or was an employer within the meaning of this article and is or was
liable for the payment of contributions under this article, or the
question whether an employer has fully complied with the obligations
imposed by this article, written notice of the hearing shall be given to
such persons or employer, either personally or by mail, and thereupon
he, she or such employer shall be deemed a party to the proceeding,
entitled to be heard. Upon such notice having been given, the referee
may then decide such question or questions and any other issue related
thereto, and his or her decision shall not be deemed limited in its
effect to the immediate claimant making the claim for benefits but shall
be deemed a general determination of such questions with respect to all
those employed by such person or employer for all the purposes of this
article, and such decision shall be conclusive and binding upon the
claimant and such person or employer, subject, however, to the right to
appeal hereinafter provided.
  2. Contested determinations, rules, or orders. Any employer who claims
to be aggrieved by the commissioner's determination of the amount of the
employer's contributions or by any other rule or order of the
commissioner under any provision of this article may apply to the
commissioner for a hearing within thirty days after mailing or personal
delivery of notice of such determination, rule, or order.
  3. Decisions. Every hearing as herein provided for shall be held by a
referee who shall render his or her decision within five days after the
hearing is concluded. Written notice of the referee's decision,
containing the reasons therefor, shall be promptly given to the claimant
or employer, to the commissioner, and to any party affected thereby who
appeared at the hearing. Publication of a referee's decision or of any
appeal board decision shall be subject to redaction or shall be withheld
in accordance with applicable federal or state statutory and regulatory
requirements governing information confidentiality and personal privacy,
including, but not limited to, article six and article six-A of the
public officers law.
  The decision of a referee shall be deemed the decision of the appeal
board from the date of the filing thereof in the department, unless an
appeal is taken from such decision to the board in accordance with the
provisions of this article or unless the board on its own motion or on
application duly made to it modify or rescind such decision.
  4. Whenever any deaf person is a party to a hearing conducted before a
referee, or a witness thereon, the referee shall in all instances,
appoint a qualified interpreter who is certified by a recognized
national or New York state credentialing authority to interpret the
proceedings to and the testimony of such deaf person. The commissioner
shall determine a reasonable fee for all such interpreting services, the
cost of which shall constitute expenses under this article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 158 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: In re the Claim of Wright, 71 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).
In re the Claim of Wright, 71 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the timeliness objection and upheld the initial determination.”
Matter of Bogart (Commr. of Labor), 140 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “–Commissioner of Labor], 133 AD3d at 1157-1158), the majority considers the circumstances of other LaValle drivers regardless of how dissimilar their circumstances are to those of claimant.1 In our 1 Stating, for example, that "about 40% of the drivers owned their vehicles and,…”
In re the Claim of Jowers, 295 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 3× “The Board ultimately ruled that claimant’s request for administrative review of the second decision was untimely, having been made long after the expiration of the 30-day limitations period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (1) (a). In the absence of any excuse that might justify an…”
Matter of Williams (Commr. of Labor), 146 A.D.3d 1210 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “Lastly, the Board did not err in ruling that Summit is liable for contributions on remuneration paid to others determined to be similarly situated to claimant (see Labor Law § 620 [1]). Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.”
Matter of Brown (Plannernet, Inc.--Comm'r of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 04065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Finally, we find no error in the Board's ruling that the employment status applies to all those similarly situated ( see Labor Law § 620 [1] [b]). "[T]he factual question of whether any other individuals actually perform the same work under the same conditions has been left open…”
Matter of Armbruster (Commr. of Labor), 138 A.D.3d 1367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “Finally, the Board correctly held that its finding of employment applies to others determined to be similarly situated to claimant (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [b]; Matter of Mitchum [Medifleet, Inc.”
In re the Claim of Green, 80 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The employer next contends that the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to review the Department’s initial determination because claimant did not request the March 2006 hearing within 30 days after the determination was mailed (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; Matter of Davis [Commissioner of…”
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 § 620 (McKinney 1965). In either case, payments are suspended pending the holding of a full scale hearing.”
In re the Claim of May, 288 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board confirmed the ALJ’s decision, giving rise to this appeal.”
Matter of Brown (Commr. of Labor), 146 A.D.3d 1198 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 4× “Following a combined hearing on both determinations, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately found that Express Delivery had failed to request a hearing regarding the July 15, 2014 finding of an employer-employee relationship within the time limit allotted pursuant to…”
Matter of Dinger (Bend Ent., LLC--Comm'r of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 02029 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Nevertheless, the record establishes that a request by Bend Entertainment for a hearing challenging the initial determination was not received by the Department of Labor until October 20, 2016, which is well beyond the strict statutory 30-day time period ( see Labor Law § 620…”
In re the Claim of Rago, 22 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that the request for a hearing was untimely and continued in effect the initial determination.”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 620(1) — 2 cases
Newman v. Reardon (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Anderson v. Hochul (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
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.