New York Appellate Digest
  • Home
  • About
  • Just Released
  • Update Service
  • Streamlined Research
  • CLE Courses
  • Contact
  • Menu Menu
You are here: Home1 / Civil Procedure2 / LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY...
Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law, Negligence

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.

 

July 3, 2024
Tags: Second Department
Share this entry
  • Share on WhatsApp
https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NYAppelateLogo-White-1.png 0 0 Bruce Freeman https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NYAppelateLogo-White-1.png Bruce Freeman2024-07-03 10:18:402024-07-07 10:37:19LABOR 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).
You might also like
Cause of Action Accruing Outside New York Brought by a Nonresident Deemed Untimely—Relevant Law Explained
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DEFENDANTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE ARBITRATION AWARD, TORT ACTIONS AGAINST THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PRECLUDED, THE TORT ACTIONS AGAINST THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BE GRANTED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT MOVE FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF RE: PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO PLEAD THE SUPPORTING ALLEGATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A CABLE, SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE EYE-PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT REGULATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL CODE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
Misrepresentation that Dwelling Was “Owner-Occupied” Justified Rescission of the Fire Insurance Policy
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE SUBJECT CHILDREN WITHIN THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT ACT 812 (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

  • Abuse of Process
  • Account Stated
  • Accountant Malpractice
  • Administrative Law
  • Agency
  • Animal Law
  • Appeals
  • Arbitration
  • Architectural Malpractice
  • Associations
  • Attorneys
  • Banking Law
  • Bankruptcy
  • Battery
  • Chiropractor Malpractice
  • Civil Commitment
  • Civil Conspiracy
  • Civil Forfeiture
  • Civil Procedure
  • Civil Rights Law
  • Condominium Corporations
  • Condominiums
  • Constitutional Law
  • Consumer Law
  • Contempt
  • Contract Law
  • Conversion
  • Cooperatives
  • Copyright
  • Corporation Law
  • Correction Law
  • County Law
  • Court of Claims
  • Criminal Law
  • Debtor-Creditor
  • Defamation
  • Dental Malpractice
  • Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)
  • Education-School Law
  • Election Law
  • Eminent Domain
  • Employment Law
  • Engineering Malpractice
  • Environmental Law
  • Equitable Recoupment
  • Evidence
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act
  • Fair Housing Act
  • Fair Housing Amendments Act
  • False Arrest
  • False Claims Act
  • False Imprisonment
  • Family Law
  • Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Forcible Touching
  • Foreclosure
  • Fraud
  • Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
  • Human Rights Law
  • Immigration Law
  • Immunity
  • Indian Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Involuntary Medical Treatment and Feeding (Inmates)
  • Judges
  • Labor Law
  • Labor Law-Construction Law
  • Land Use
  • Landlord-Tenant
  • Legal Malpractice
  • Lien Law
  • Limited Liability Company Law
  • Longshoreman's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act
  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Maritime Law
  • Medicaid
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mental Hygiene Law
  • Military Law
  • Money Had and Received
  • Municipal Law
  • Navigation Law
  • Negligence
  • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Notarial Misconduct
  • Nuisance
  • Partnership Law
  • Personal Property
  • Pharmacist Malpractice
  • Physician Patient Confidentiality
  • Pistol Permits
  • Prima Facie Tort
  • Private Nuisance
  • Privilege
  • Products Liability
  • Professional Malpractice
  • Public Authorities Law
  • Public Corporations
  • Public Health Law
  • Public Nuisance
  • Real Estate
  • Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
  • Real Property Law
  • Real Property Tax Law
  • Religion
  • Replevin
  • Retirement and Social Security Law
  • Securities
  • Sepulcher
  • Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
  • Social Services Law
  • Statutes
  • Tax Law
  • Tenant Harassment
  • Tortious Interference with Contract
  • Tortious Interference with Employment
  • Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations
  • Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
  • Town Law
  • Toxic Torts
  • Trade Secrets
  • Trademarks
  • Trespass
  • Trespass to Chattels
  • Trusts and Estates
  • Uncategorized
  • Unemployment Insurance
  • Unfair Competition
  • Uniform Commercial Code
  • Usury
  • Utilities
  • Vehicle and Traffic Law
  • Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM)
  • Village Law
  • Water Law
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Zoning

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...
Scroll to top