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
NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PASSENGER IN PLAINTIFF’S CAR EXECUTED A RELEASE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER; DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION FROM PLAINTIFF FOR ANY INJURY SUFFERED BY THE PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
SUSPENDED ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO QUANTUM MERUIT COMPENSATION FOR WORK DONE PRIOR TO THE SUSPENSION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DETERIORATION OF A TREE LIMB WHICH FELL ON PLANTIFF’S CAR (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...