CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. (B&C), a general contractor, sought to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing state prevailing benefit supplement laws. This action stemmed from B&C's subcontractor, Shared Management Group, Ltd., allegedly failing to pay union-related benefit funds, leading the DOL to order the withholding of payments to B&C. B&C argued that New York Labor Law §§ 220 and 223, which impose liability on general contractors for subcontractor non-compliance with prevailing wage laws, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court reviewed various precedents on ERISA preemption, including GE I and GE II, and concluded that New York Labor Law § 223 is fundamentally linked to § 220, which directly relates to ERISA plans. Therefore, the court found § 223 also preempted by ERISA, granting B&C's motion for summary judgment and denying the DOL's cross-motion.

ERISA preemptionLabor LawPrevailing Wage ActBenefit supplementsGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor defaultPublic works contractSummary judgmentFederal preemptionEmployee benefit plans
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Jerome Cromwell sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and its CEO, Alan D. Aviles, alleging unpaid wages for work performed before and after scheduled shifts and during breaks. Cromwell sought overtime and gap-time pay under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved to dismiss the NYLL claims, asserting that HHC is a political subdivision of New York State and therefore exempt from NYLL wage provisions. The Court conducted a particularized inquiry into HHC's nature, considering its essential public function, substantial public funding, and classification as a public employer under other state and federal laws. Ultimately, the Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that HHC is a political subdivision for NYLL purposes and dismissing Cromwell's NYLL claims with prejudice.

Wage disputeOvertime payGap-time payFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawPolitical subdivisionPublic employerMotion to dismissGovernmental immunityPublic benefit corporation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The Attorney-General of New York initiated an action against Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Ed) seeking civil damages and an injunction to enforce compliance with the Right to Know Law (Public Health Law art 48; Labor Law art 28). This law mandates employers to provide information and training to employees concerning toxic substances in the workplace. Con Ed moved to dismiss the action, presenting two main arguments: first, that the Attorney-General lacked authority to sue without a prior investigation and determination by the Department of Labor, and second, that primary jurisdiction over enforcement of the Right to Know Law rested with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health. The court denied Con Ed's motion on both counts, ruling that Labor Law § 882 (1) unambiguously grants the Attorney-General the authority to bring such actions without a prerequisite administrative investigation. Furthermore, the court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, as the administrative agencies had not yet promulgated comprehensive regulations to enforce the law, leaving a regulatory void that the judiciary was empowered to address to protect employee rights.

Right to Know LawToxic SubstancesEmployee InformationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawEnforcement AuthorityLabor LawPublic Health Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Owens v. City of New York

Plaintiff William A. Owens, a maintenance worker, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while repairing a door's locking mechanism within the New York City school system. He subsequently initiated legal action against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education, asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Owens' motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court determined that Owens' activity constituted routine maintenance, not a protected activity under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentAffirmation of OrderWorkplace InjuryStatutory LiabilityDefendants' Cross MotionPlaintiff's Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1989

Tibak v. City of New York

Plaintiffs decedent, Albert Tibak, a dockbuilder, was killed when struck by a steel beam falling from a crane on a barge while rehabilitating Pier 97. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the New York State Labor Law. However, the IAS court granted the City of New York's motion for summary judgment, determining the case was governed by Federal maritime law due to the accident occurring on navigable waters and having a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities. The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed this decision, finding the record sufficient and concluding that Federal maritime law, specifically the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, preempted the New York State Labor Law in this instance.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathNavigable WatersLabor LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Affirmation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 26,596 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational