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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Charter School Ass'n v. Smith

This case involves appeals from two Supreme Court judgments concerning the applicability of Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions to construction, renovation, repair, and maintenance projects undertaken by charter schools. Initially, the Department of Labor (DOL) had issued an opinion that charter school contracts were not subject to these provisions but reversed its stance in 2007. Various charter schools and related entities challenged this new determination, but the Supreme Court dismissed their applications, ruling in favor of DOL. On appeal, the court applied the two-part Erie County test, including modifications from a 2007 statutory amendment, to determine if the projects were subject to prevailing wage laws. The appellate court concluded that charter agreements do not satisfy the requirements of a contract for public work involving laborers, workers, or mechanics, thus reversing the lower court's judgments and declaring charter schools exempt from Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions.

Charter SchoolsPrevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Public Work ProjectsDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78Educational CorporationsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentErie County Test
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanley v. Thompson

The New York City Comptroller's determination from March 2, 2006, which established the prevailing wage for supervisor highway repairers (SHRs), was unanimously confirmed by the court. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the Labor Law § 220 proceeding was dismissed. Substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that SHRs and foremen of highway repairs in Locals 1010 and 1018 perform comparable duties, based on thorough investigation including job specification comparisons and field surveys. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that SHRs cannot receive the prevailing wage for manual labor not explicitly in their job specification, noting that their duties include "related work" and hands-on tasks necessary for supervision, thus exposing them to similar risks as their crews. Consequently, SHRs are entitled to the same prevailing wage as foremen performing comparable duties in the private sector.

Prevailing WageSupervisor Highway RepairerLabor Law § 220Civil Service ScheduleJob SpecificationManual Labor DutiesComparable DutiesCollective BargainingField SurveysPetition Denied
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

522939 Matter of W.M. Schultz Construction, Inc. v. Musolino

Petitioners W.M. Schultz Construction, Inc. and William M. Schultz challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor which found they failed to pay prevailing wages for a project at Saratoga Race Course. The Department of Labor concluded that a contract between the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Schultz Construction was subject to prevailing wage laws. The Court reviewed the determination to ascertain if the project qualified as a 'public work' requiring public funding. The Court found no substantial evidence that the project was paid for by public funds, as NYRA did not receive direct state funds for this project and funds transferred from a predecessor entity (Old NYRA) were not earmarked for capital works. Consequently, the Court annulled the determination and granted the petitions, ruling the project was not a public work subject to prevailing wage obligations.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksCPLR Article 78Labor LawAnnulmentContract LawGovernment ContractsPublic FundsSubstantial EvidenceNew York Racing Association
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Araujo v. Tiano's Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs' causes of action against their employer and its surety for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, based on claims of being paid less than the minimum prevailing wages set pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, were dismissed. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed without costs. The court ruled that no private right of action exists to enforce contracts requiring payment of federal prevailing wage schedules, citing prior case law, and stated that the plaintiffs’ remedy lies in pending administrative proceedings. A dissenting opinion argued that the precedent was wrongly decided and that workers should be able to sue to recover mandated wages.

Summary JudgmentPrevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentPrivate Right of ActionAdministrative RemediesDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Earth Tech, Inc. v. Angello

The City of Glens Falls, Warren County, sought to privatize its water treatment facilities, contracting with a private entity (petitioner) for operation and maintenance. Special legislation allowed this, mandating prevailing wages for construction but not explicitly for operation and maintenance. A dispute arose regarding whether petitioner was required to pay prevailing wages under Labor Law § 220 to former city workers transferred to its employ. The Department of Labor found Labor Law article 8 applicable, a finding affirmed by the respondent. The court confirmed this determination, dismissing the petitioner's challenge and emphasizing the strong public policy of Labor Law § 220 to protect workers' wages in public works.

Prevailing WagesPublic WorksLabor LawCPLR Article 78Collective Bargaining AgreementMunicipal ContractsWater TreatmentEmployee BenefitsStatutory InterpretationPublic Policy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agency Construction Corp. v. Hudacs

This case concerns a general contractor (Petitioner) who challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor regarding prevailing wage violations. The Petitioner, having subcontracted a public works project to Rock Hill Construction, was held liable when Rock Hill failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees. An administrative hearing found Rock Hill guilty of underpayments and submitting false payroll records. The Commissioner adopted recommendations for repayment, interest, and penalties. The Petitioner sought review, questioning employee classifications, hours worked, and the assessed amounts. The court confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed the petition.

prevailing wagespublic workssubcontractor liabilitywage underpaymentfalse payroll recordscivil penaltyinterest assessmentjob classificationemployee testimonysubstantial evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TPK Construction Corp. v. Hudacs

The petitioner, TPK Const. Corp., challenged a Department of Labor determination finding it liable for failing to pay prevailing wages and supplements. While conceding underpayment and interest, TPK argued it was innocent, claiming its role was solely providing bonding for its joint venturer, Erie Coatings, Inc., which allegedly managed the project entirely. However, the record showed TPK's active involvement, including its president's presence on site and participation in contract discussions. Furthermore, TPK had a documented history of multiple prior prevailing wage violations, some deemed willful. The court found substantial evidence supported the Department of Labor's determination, concluding that TPK, as an experienced public works contractor, knew or should have known of the violations. The court affirmed the principle of joint and several liability for joint venturers and ultimately confirmed the Department's determination, dismissing TPK's petition.

Prevailing WageLabor LawWillful ViolationJoint VentureCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewUnderpayment of WagesContractor LiabilityPublic WorksAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 2,218 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