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
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

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

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

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salinas v. Diner

A claimant, a waitress, suffered a fractured hip and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Her case was established for a work-related injury, and a hearing was held to determine her average weekly wage, specifically regarding tip income. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage as $111.30 based on reported salary and tips. The claimant appealed, contending that unreported tip income of $266 should have been included, which would raise her average weekly wage to $199.97. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law § 14 and 12 NYCRR 357.1 [c] mandate that tip valuation be based on amounts reported to the employer, absent a specific agreement.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTip IncomeUnreported IncomeWage CalculationWaitressFractured HipBoard Decision AppealStatutory InterpretationNYCRR
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dalcro Corp. & International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Three applications were submitted to the court regarding an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Employer Dalcro Corp. moved to stay arbitration and to vacate an arbitrator's award, while the Union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose from an alleged oral modification of wage rates. Dalcro claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid, there was no arbitrable issue, and the National Labor Relations Board had pre-empted jurisdiction. The court denied Dalcro's application for a stay, finding that Dalcro had participated in the arbitration proceedings. However, the court granted Dalcro's application to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the hearing as mandated by Civil Practice Act § 1458 after being served with a motion for a stay. Consequently, the Union's application to confirm the award was denied, and a rehearing before the arbitrator was directed.

Arbitration AgreementCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardArbitration StayVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardDue ProcessJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Matter of Suit-Kote Corporation v. Rivera

Petitioner, a highway construction contractor, challenged the prevailing wage rates set by the respondent for operating engineers, laborers, and teamsters for public work projects. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to ensure that the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) used to determine these rates covered at least 30% of the workers, as required by Labor Law § 220. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied petitioner's request for disclosure. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court holding that the burden of proving that less than 30% of workers were covered rests with the employer. The appellate court also found the respondent's method for determining wage rates was not arbitrary or capricious and that the request for disclosure was overly broad, thus upholding the denial.

Prevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsCollective Bargaining AgreementsLabor Law ComplianceBurden of ProofDisclosureCPLR Article 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewWage Rate DeterminationHighway Construction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Naftilos Painting & Sandblasting, Inc. v. Hartnett

Petitioners Naftilos Painting and Sandblasting, Inc. and Nick Margaritis d/b/a Atlas Maintenance Company sought judicial review of respondent's determinations. The respondent had found that petitioners willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements on Department of Transportation bridge projects. This court previously remitted the case for clarification of calculation methodology. Now, the court confirmed the determinations, finding substantial evidence for underpayments based on worker logs and engineer diaries. The court rejected petitioners' arguments concerning expired wage schedules, collective bargaining agreement liability, and worker classification. Findings of willfulness were also upheld.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCollective Bargaining AgreementsWillful ViolationDepartment of TransportationHearing Officer Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Elevator Constructors v. National Elevator Industry, Inc.

This case concerns a labor dispute over elevator workers' wages, governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) and the National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NEI). The agreement uses the 'Atlantic City Plan' to set wages. After other construction unions accepted pay cuts, NEI unilaterally reduced IUEC members' wages. The IUEC filed an action seeking to prevent these reductions, which was moved to arbitration. Arbitrator Stephen B. Goldberg ruled that the wage formula allowed for downward adjustments. The Court, presided over by District Judge Goettel, confirmed the arbitrator's findings, granting NEI's motion to confirm and denying IUEC's motion to vacate. The decision affirmed that the wage plan allows for both increases and decreases, consistent with the original intent and history of the contract.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementWage AdjustmentsArbitration AwardUnion WagesElevator IndustryContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawFederal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquid Asphalt Distributors Ass'n v. Roberts

The case concerns the interpretation of the 1983 amendments to Labor Law § 220, which govern prevailing wage rates for workers on public projects. Prior to 1983, the statute required extensive surveys to determine prevailing wages. The amendments aimed to streamline this by allowing the adoption of collectively bargained wage rates if 30% of workers in a specific trade and locality were subject to such agreements, and redefined 'locality' based on these agreements. Petitioners, Suit-Kote Corporation and Liquid Asphalt Distributors Association, Inc., challenged a wage schedule set by the respondent for asphalt distributors, arguing the respondent failed to verify the 30% threshold and that the threshold was not met. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the 1983 amendments shifted the burden of proof to employers to demonstrate that less than 30% of workers were subject to the adopted wage rate, a burden the petitioners failed to meet with sufficient evidence.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220Collective bargaining agreementsStatutory interpretationBurden of proofPublic worksWage schedulesAppellate reviewIndustrial relationsLegislative intent
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,973 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