N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART General Provisions / TITLE Principles of Criminal Liability / ARTICLE Parties to Offenses and Liability Through Accessorial Conduct
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 20.20 (2026)

Criminal liability of corporations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 20.20 Criminal liability of corporations.
  1. As used in this section:
  (a) "Agent" means any director, officer or employee of a corporation,
or any other person who is authorized to act in behalf of the
corporation.
  (b) "High managerial agent" means an officer of a corporation or any
other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the
formulation of corporate policy or the supervision in a managerial
capacity of subordinate employees.
  2. A corporation is guilty of an offense when:
  (a) The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to
discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on
corporations by law; or
  (b) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in, authorized,
solicited, requested, commanded, or recklessly tolerated by the board of
directors or by a high managerial agent acting within the scope of his
employment and in behalf of the corporation; or
  (c) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of
the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on
behalf of the corporation, and the offense is (i) a misdemeanor or a
violation, (ii) one defined by a statute which clearly indicates a
legislative intent to impose such criminal liability on a corporation,
(iii) any offense set forth in title twenty-seven of article seventy-one
of the environmental conservation law, or (iv) is in relation to a crime
involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the
corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: People v. Mattiace, 568 N.E.2d 1189 (NY 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mattiace, 568 N.E.2d 1189 (NY 1990). · cites it 4× “” (Penal Law § 20.20 [2] [c] [emphasis added].”
People v. Highgate LTC Mgmt., LLC, 69 A.D.3d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 5× “Moreover, although defendant concedes that Penal Law § 20.20 (2) essentially renders that doctrine applicable to corporations for certain intentional crimes, it maintains that the statute deviates from common law and must be strictly construed such that the rule contained…”
People v. Byrne, 570 N.E.2d 1066 (NY 1991). · cites it 2× “, Penal Law § 20.20). Thus, when a *466 corporation is held criminally liable because it is a "person” under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 3 (22), it is, in reality, being made to answer for its own acts.”
People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union, 170 Misc. 2d 790 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996). · cites it 4× “However, while the Legislature enacted a statute defining the scope of a corporation’s criminal liability (Penal Law § 20.20), it did not enact a statute defining the scope of an unincorporated association’s criminal liability.”
People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity, 250 A.D.2d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “Hence, defendant was indicted under far more exacting standards than would be applicable to a corporation — that a board or high managerial agent recklessly tolerated the criminal conduct of its agents (Penal Law § 20.20). The Grand Jury was given adequate information to enable…”
People v. Congregational Khal Chaisidei Skwere, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “As Gross was undeniably a high managerial agent of defendant, his wrongdoing in this respect may form the basis for a finding of criminal liability on the part of the corporation (see, Penal Law § 20.20 [2] [b]). Moreover, there is no question that defendant’s failure to remedy…”
People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 30493(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024). · cites it 3× “This includes not only the individual defendants, but also the corporate defendants, as Penal Law § 20.20(c) makes clear that a corporation is liable for a misdemeanor committed by its agents “acting within the scope of [their] employment and on behalf of the corporation.”
People v. Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025). · cites it 4× “The evidence, in turn, also established the liability of the corporate defendants by operation of Penal Law § 20.20. The record supports a finding of liability on the second cause of action for falsifying business records in the second degree under New York Penal Law § 175.”
People v. Flores, 292 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “15 [3]), on a theory of accomplice liability (see Penal Law § 20.20), beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Christie, 133 Misc. 2d 468 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). “Thus, whether the acts or words of a corporate employee are binding upon the corporation depends upon proof that the acts were done or words spoken by the agent acting within the scope of his employment, or upon the authority of a high managerial employee acting within the scope…”
People v. Lessoff & Berger, 159 Misc. 2d 1096 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). “” (See, Penal Law § 20.20 [1] [b].) And it is consistent with the settled principle in torts that a partnership is responsible for conversion of funds by one partner, even if the other partners are unaware of the misconduct.”
People v. John Galt Corp., 113 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Defendant was properly convicted under the statutory standards for a misdemeanor prosecution of a corporation based on the conduct of its agents (see Penal Law § 20.20 [2] [c]). The evidence supports the inference that defendant’s employees, “acting within the scope of [their]…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— N.Y. Penal Law § 20.20(c) — 1 case
People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 30493(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024). “This includes not only the individual defendants, but also the corporate defendants, as Penal Law § 20.20(c) makes clear that a corporation is liable for a misdemeanor committed by its agents “acting within the scope of [their] employment and on behalf of the corporation.”
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.