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
Dec 02, 1993

Hart v. Holtzman

This case involves a CPLR article 78 petition challenging a determination made by the Comptroller of the City of New York. The Comptroller had ruled that rehabilitation and construction work on the Greenpoint Hospital site, despite being publicly financed, was for privately-owned and constructed housing for low-income tenants, thus not constituting "public works" under New York State Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Comptroller determined that workers on these projects were not entitled to prevailing wages. The Supreme Court affirmed the Comptroller's decision, finding it had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The appellate court further affirmed, emphasizing that the primary objective of the work, not incidental public benefit or significant governmental funding, determines if a project is a "public work" subject to prevailing wage requirements, especially when private developers retain ownership and construction risk.

Public WorksPrevailing WageLabor Law § 220Comptroller DeterminationCPLR Article 78 PetitionRational Basis ReviewPrivate ProjectsGovernmental FundingConstruction ContractsAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
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

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. 03-14-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devvy Kidd John Kidd M. J. Shadden John Cole R.M.Daiey Tracy Stephens Patricia Stroyick Dorothy Morrow Charles Morrow Amy Williams David Williams Norman Kuehn Elizabeth Theiss Rebecca Gutierrez Marie Nugent Steve G. Crutchfield v. Texas Public Utility Commission AEP Texas Central Company AEP Texas North Company CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Texas-New Mexico Power Company And Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC

This brief concerns an appeal from the 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas, initiated by Devvy Kidd et al. against the Public Utility Commission of Texas and several utility companies. The appellants are challenging the Commission's denial of their request for a public hearing related to advanced metering technology, specifically in Project No. 40404, where they sought rulemaking proceedings regarding smart meters. The appellees argue that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such appeals and that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) only requires public hearings when a rule is actually adopted, which did not occur in Project No. 40404. They contend that the Commission did seriously consider appellants' concerns and provided opportunities for participation in other related proceedings where rules were adopted, such as Project No. 41111, for which the appellants failed to appeal the adopted rule. The appellees seek to affirm the trial court’s order granting their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the cause.

Smart MetersRadiofrequency EmissionsSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility CommissionAppellate LawJudicial ReviewRegulatory ComplianceTexas LawEnergy Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vulcan Affordable Housing Corp. v. Hartnett

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether a low-income housing project in the City of Albany, partially funded by a grant from the Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC), qualifies as a "public works" project under Labor Law § 220, which would necessitate the payment of prevailing wages. The petitioner, a private contractor engaged in building the housing units, refused an administrative subpoena for payroll information, asserting Labor Law § 220 was inapplicable. The project involved construction of low- and moderate-income housing, with title held by Capital City Housing Development Fund Company (CCH), and no public ownership, access, or use of the structures. Supreme Court concluded, and the appellate court affirmed, that the project did not meet the criteria for a "public works" project despite serving a public function of neighborhood rehabilitation, distinguishing it from fully subsidized public housing. Consequently, the subpoena duces tecum seeking payroll information was quashed.

Prevailing WagePublic Works ProjectLabor Law § 220Private Housing Finance LawAffordable HousingCPLR Article 78Subpoena Duces TecumPrivate ContractorGrant FundingConstruction Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 12,320 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