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

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

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

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

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
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
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
Jan 21, 1992

Saitanis Enterprises, Inc. v. Hines

The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's determination, dated January 21, 1992, found that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees in violation of Labor Law § 220. The court confirmed the Department of Labor's determination, finding that the record supported the finding of underpayment and that the calculation of underpayment was supported by substantial evidence. The court also deemed the petitioner's argument regarding worker classification as untimely, noting that challenges to prevailing wage rate schedules must be made within four months of receipt. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits, with costs.

prevailing wagesunderpaymentDepartment of Laborcredibility determinationsworker classificationtimeliness of challengeadministrative agencysubstantial evidencelabor law violationjudicial review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emes Heating & Plumbing Contractors, Inc. v. McGowen

Petitioner, a construction company, entered a public works contract but was investigated by the Department of Labor for failing to pay prevailing wages and supplements. After petitioner failed to provide payroll records, an audit and subsequent hearing found that petitioner willfully violated Labor Law § 220 (3) and owed $37,751.81 in back wages, plus interest and a 25% civil penalty. Petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging procedural errors and due process violations. The court rejected all of petitioner's contentions, including arguments against evidence admission and the finding of willfulness, which was supported by prior violations. The determination against the petitioner was ultimately confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing WageLabor Law ViolationsPublic Works ContractUnderpayment of WagesCivil PenaltyCPLR Article 78Willful ViolationDue ProcessHearing OfficerAudit Findings
References
13
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 9,953 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