You are here: / / CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED)...
, ,

CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendants’ counterclaims alleging violations of the Labor Law, noted that corporate shareholders and officers can only be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations if they exercise control of a corporation’s day-to-day operations, which was alleged here:

“[C]orporate shareholders and officers generally may not be subjected to civil liability for corporate violations of the Labor Law absent allegations that such persons exercised control of the corporation’s day-to-day operations by, for example, hiring and firing employees, supervising employee work schedules, and determining the method and rate of pay” … . Here, the defendants adequately alleged, inter alia, that the additional defendants controlled the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff’s payment practices. Interstate Home Loan Ctr., Inc. v United Mtge. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03715, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Corporate shareholders and officers may be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations only if they exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

 

You might also like
THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY AN INSURER SEEKING SUBROGATION FOR A CLAIM ALREADY PAID IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE; THE PAID CLAIM STEMMED FROM THE ACCIDENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ONGOING LITIGATION; THE MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Contempt Does Not Include the Element of Willfulness/Adverse Inference May Be Drawn Re: Assertion of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Civil Contempt Proceeding
ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth
ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.

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

DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT... COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304, PARTICULARLY THE MAILING...