You are here: / / LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY...
, , ,

LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law section 193 prohibited plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer from reducing plaintiff’s pay to recoup costs associated with a traffic accident alleged to have been the result of plaintiff’s negligence:

Labor Law § 193 “prohibits an employer from making any deduction from an employee’s wages unless permitted by law or authorized by the employee for certain purposes” … . To allow an employer to recover the return of paid wages based upon an employee’s alleged lack of performance “would be permitting [that employer] to do indirectly and retroactively that which the law specifically prohibits it from doing directly” … . This principle applies equally whether the cause of action sounds in negligence or in contract, as an employee may not waive the protections of Labor Law § 193 … .

… [T]he defendants’ counterclaims are explicit attempts to recoup costs for their business allegedly arising out of the plaintiff’s negligence or poor performance. Because such causes of action are barred by the Labor Law, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims. Craig v Fastex Logistics Transp., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03678, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer reduced his pay to recoup costs associated with plaintiff’s traffic accident with a company truck. Such a pay reduction is prohibited by Labor Law section 193.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE STAIRWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE BUILDING CODE PROVISION; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATION THAT FIREFIGHTERS TOLD PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED AND IT WAS SAFE TO REENTER WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FIREFIGHTERS TURNED OFF THE WATER AND LEFT, AFTER WHICH THE BUILDING BURNED TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.
ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF, IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT, ALLEGED HE WAS ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF FAMILY SERVICES OF WESTCHESTER (FSW) AND BROUGHT CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AGAINST FSW; THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE FSW WAS AWARE OF THE EMPLOYEE’S PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE WRONGFUL ACTS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT... THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE...