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

N.Y. Labor Law § 622 (2026)

Rules governing hearings and appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 622. Rules governing hearings and appeals. 1. Rules and regulations.
The manner in which disputes and appeals shall be presented before
referees and the appeal board, respectively, and the conduct of hearings
before referees and the board shall be governed by suitable rules and
regulations established by the board.
  2. Evidence and procedure. At any hearing held as herein provided,
evidence may be offered to support a determination, rule, or order or to
prove that it is incorrect. The appeal board and the referees, in
hearings and appeals under any provision of this article, shall not be
bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or
formal rules of procedure but may conduct the hearings and appeals in
such manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties.
Hearings governed by this article may be closed and hearing transcripts
may be redacted 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: In re the Claim of Neville, 264 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Claim of Neville, 264 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). “Initially, we reject claimant’s contention that he was denied due process as the result of certain evidentiary rulings made by the Administrative Law Judge inasmuch as technical rules of evidence do not apply to hearings regarding unemployment insurance benefits (see, Labor Law…”
In re the Claim of Allen, 154 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “Accordingly, since it has not been demonstrated that the Board abused its discretion in reaching the determination allowing resettlement (see, Matter of Dixon [Levine], 41 AD2d 868 ) or exceeded its authority (Labor Law § 622 [2]; see, Matter of Walker [Levine] 51 AD2d 1079 ),…”
In re the Claim of Ellenport, 242 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). “Hearings regarding unemployment insurance benefits are not subject to the technical rules of evidence (see, Labor Law § 622 [2]). Inasmuch as the claimant did not, as the Board fairly observed, proffer any compelling evidence that she applied for the word processing course prior…”
In re the Claim of Campos, 253 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “Hearings regarding unemployment insurance benefits are not governed by technical rules of evidence (see, Labor Law § 622 [2]; Matter of Ellenport [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 821 ).”
In re the Claim of Barrett, 270 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “The technical rules of evidence are inapplicable to hearings regarding unemployment insurance benefits (see, Labor Law § 622 [2]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [a]; Matter of Neville [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 918 ; Matter of Campos [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 935 ).”
In re the Claim of Kokoni, 149 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “The remainder of the record, Stearns’ testimony and the documents submitted by the Commissioner, was untainted by the error that resulted in reversal; striking the entire record would have served no purpose other than a needless repetition of properly received evidence.”
In re the Claim of Philip, 120 A.D.3d 1470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Brody was entitled to call claimant as a witness and, moreover, had the right to request that the ALJ issue a subpoena to compel her attendance (see Labor Law § 622 [1]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Mintzer [Sheft —Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 965, 966 [1998]).”
Matter of Pearson (Comm'r of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 8588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). “4 [a]), and the record contains no support for its contention that the Board relied upon claimant's "unrebutted claims" ( see Labor Law § 622 [1]). Finally, the Foundation has not demonstrated that the Board abused its discretion in denying its request to reopen its prior…”
Matter of Lamo (Comm'r of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 03432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “In any event, we perceive no error, as the technical rules of evidence and procedure are not applicable to hearings regarding unemployment insurance benefits ( see Labor Law § 622 [2]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [a]; Matter of Barrett [Eastman Kodak Co.”
MatterofPhilip[Commr.ofLabor] (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Brody was entitled to call claimant as a witness and, moreover, had the right to request that the ALJ issue a subpoena to compel her attendance (see Labor Law § 622 [1]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Mintzer [Sheft–Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 965, 966 [1998]).”
MatterofWeeden[Commr.ofLabor] (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Further, "claimant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim" despite the refusal of the Administrative Law Judge to consider testimony of dubious relevance regarding her prior work with the employer (Matter of Lieber [Ross], 46 NY2d 867, 868…”
In re the Claim of Philip, 120 A.D.3d 1470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Brody was entitled to call claimant as a witness and, moreover, had the right to request that the ALJ issue a subpoena to compel her attendance (see Labor Law § 622 [1]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Mintzer [Sheft —Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 965, 966 [1998]).”
Show all 14 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.