You are here: / / labor law prevailing wage requirement does not apply to construction work...
, ,

labor law prevailing wage requirement does not apply to construction work for a volunteer fire department which is a not-for-profit corporation.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law 220 did not apply to construction work for the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD) which had procured its own funding for a new firehouse:

After an investigation, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter, concluding that the firehouse project was a public work subject to the prevailing wage law. Once the subcontractors learned of the DOL’s determination, work on the project halted. In December 2006, BVFD agreed to indemnify [the contractor] and its subcontractors against any liability resulting from their failure to pay the prevailing wages, and construction resumed and the project was completed. …

The prevailing wage law covers contracts involving each of four specific public entities: the state, a public benefit corporation, a municipal corporation or a commission appointed pursuant to law (see Labor Law § 220 [2]). It is undisputed that BVFD is a fire corporation as defined by the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, and it is not one of the public entities named in the statute. Nevertheless, the Commissioner determined that BVFD could be deemed “the functional equivalent” of a “municipal department” within the meaning of the Labor Law. …

The “functional equivalent” test, however, was rejected by this Court in Matter of New York Charter School Assn. v Smith (15 NY3d 403 [2010]). There, the DOL deemed charter schools “public benefit corporations” because the schools serve a valuable public purpose and their existence is the result of a charter issued by a state or local municipal entity. Given those factors, the DOL determined that charter schools met the requirements established by the courts of this State for public work projects. We rejected that argument because while charter schools, like volunteer fire corporations, may be “quasi-public” in nature, they are not a specified public entity and thus, do not fit within the ambit of the statute (id. at 410).

Had the legislature intended to include volunteer fire corporations under the statute, it could easily have done so. Notably, in 2007, the legislature expanded the statute’s coverage to include contracts involving other types of entities, but only when it can be shown they were acting on behalf of the public entity … . Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v Gardner, 2013 NY Slip Op 01017 [20 NY3d 469], CtApp 2-19-13

 

 

You might also like
DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP).
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ACT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION TO T-SHIRTS REMEMBERING THE MURDER VICTIM WAS ERROR; UNDER THE FACTS, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED.
PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS.
STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Worker’s Compensation Carrier Was Entitled to Credit for Amount Claimant Recovered in Civil Suit against Employer and Co-employees
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).
PETITIONER, THE PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY STOCK HOLDER OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WAS THE “PERSON RESPONSIBLE” FOR COLLECTING AND PAYING EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

any failure by defense counsel to move to suppress identification testimony... Late Notice of Claim Disallowed.