You are here: / / THE LABOR LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALLOWING A WORKER...
, ,

THE LABOR LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALLOWING A WORKER TO SUE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE THE WORKER WAS PAID BIWEEKLY, NOT WEEKLY AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 191 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, disagreeing with the First Department, over a partial dissent, determined that Labor Law 191, entitled “Frequency of payments,” does not create a private right of action which would allow an employee, who was fully paid, to sue for liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees because the employee was paid “biweekly,” not “weekly” as required by the statute:

… {The] … legislative history reveals that Labor Law § 198(1-a) was aimed at remedying employers’ failure to pay the amount of wages required by contract or law. There is no reference in the legislative history of Labor Law § 198 to the frequency or timing of wage payments, and nothing to suggest that the statute was meant to address circumstances in which an employer pays full wages pursuant to an agreed-upon, biweekly pay schedule that nevertheless does not conform to the frequency of payments provision of law.

[W]e conclude that Labor Law § 198 does not expressly provide for a private right of action to recover liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees where a manual worker is paid all of his or her wages biweekly, rather than weekly, in violation of Labor Law § 191(1)(a). Grant v Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00183, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The Labor Law does not provide a private right of action allowing a worker to sue for liquidated damage, prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees because the worker was paid biweekly, not weekly as required by Labor Law 191.

 

You might also like
No Allegation of Active Concealment of Defects on Part of Seller/Buyer Can Not Sue for Defects Discovered after the Closing Based Solely Upon Seller’s Silence
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold
WHEN IT IS ARGUED A NECESSARY PARTY WAS NOT SUED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ON THAT GROUND; RATHER THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 1001 (B) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES; THE CHARGES REQUIRED INTENTIONAL CONDUCT; THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY BUT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES; THE INCONSISTENCY RENDERED THE RULING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (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

THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE TO THIS... DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL...