New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 623 (2026)

Decisions final

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 623. Decisions final. 1. A decision of a referee, if not appealed
from, shall be final on all questions of fact and law. A decision of the
appeal board shall be final on all questions of fact and, unless
appealed from, shall be final on all questions of law.
  2. No finding of fact or law contained in a decision rendered pursuant
to this article by a referee, the appeal board or a court shall preclude
the litigation of any issue of fact or law in any subsequent action or
proceeding; provided, however, that this subdivision shall not apply to
causes of action which (i) arise under this article, (ii) seek to
collect or challenge liability for unemployment insurance contributions,
(iii) seek to recover overpayments of unemployment insurance benefits,
or (iv) allege that a claimant or employer was denied constitutional
rights in connection with the administrative processing, hearing,
determination or decision of a claim for benefits or assessment of
liability for unemployment insurance contributions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Pollard v. New York Methodist Hosp., 861 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pollard v. New York Methodist Hosp., 861 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2017). “at 85, New York State Labor Law section 623(2) provides that unemployment insurance decisions do not have preclusive effect in subsequent litigation (subject to certain exceptions that are not applicable here)! See N.Y. LAB. LAW § 623 (2) (“No finding of fact or law contained in…”

In re the Claim of Gruber, 674 N.E.2d 1354 (NY 1996). “Standard of Review Judicial review of the determinations of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is limited by statute to questions of law (Labor Law § 623; Matter of Fisher [Levine], 36 NY2d 146, 149-150 ).”

In re the Claim of Grant, 294 A.D.2d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 2× “In an April 2000 decision, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) found that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct and was, accordingly, disqualified from receiving benefits.”

Lucas v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 54 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y 1998). “See also N.Y. Labor Law § 623 (2) (McKinney’s 1988) (“No finding of fact or law contained in a decision rendered pursuant to this article [unemployment insurance] .”

Strong v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 62 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “In any event, respondent’s finding that petitioner engaged in corporeal punishment is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Von Gizycki v Levy, 3 AD3d 572, 574 [2004]), and the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that petitioner did not engage in corporeal…”

Pollard v. New York Methodist Hosp., 134 F. Supp. 3d 681 (E.D.N.Y 2015). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Lab. Law § 623 (2); see also Henry v.”

Moore v. Ross, 502 F. Supp. 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “Labor Law § 623. However, its regulations provide that the Appeal Board may reopen any of its decisions on its own motion or on the application of a party, 12 N.”

In re the Claim of Horton, 176 A.D.2d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “Claimant erroneously argues that the Board exceeded its powers in assessing the credibility or lack thereof of claimant’s testimony based only upon the record. The Labor Law specifically provides that the decision of the Board shall be final on all questions of fact and, unless…”

Arroyo v. Westlb Admin., Inc., 54 F. Supp. 2d 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “2d 635 (1986)); see also N.Y. Lab. Law § 623 (2). Such decisions have, however, been found admissible in federal court.”

Payton v. City Univ. of New York, 453 F. Supp. 2d 775 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 2× “Labor Law § 623; Wooten v. New York City Dep’t of Gen.”

In re the Claim of Shamilov, 68 A.D.3d 1293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “Initially, claimant asserts that the Board’s 2006 determination was incorrect, but he did not appeal from that determination and any such issues cannot “be relitigated anew in another proceeding” (Matter of Flores [Roberts], 101 AD2d 671, 672 [1984]; see Labor Law § 623; Matter…”

Rivoli v. Stern, 160 A.D.2d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “(See, Labor Law § 623.) Moreover, the Appeal Board only went so far as to determine that petitioner’s behavior did not amount to "misconduct”.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— N.Y. Labor Law § 623(2) — 2 cases

Payton v. City Univ. of New York, 453 F. Supp. 2d 775 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Labor Law § 623; Wooten v. New York City Dep’t of Gen.”

Uy v. Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).

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.