You are here: / The Prevailing Wage Statute Applies To All Work Reasonably Interpreted...

Search Results

/ , ,

The Prevailing Wage Statute Applies To All Work Reasonably Interpreted to Be Covered by the Statute—The Fact that the Application of the Statute Is Unsettled At the Time the Public Works Contract Is Entered Does Not Allow the Employer to Escape Its Reach Once the Law Is Settled

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Smith, answered two certified questions posed by the Second Circuit about the application of the prevailing wage statute to workers engaged in the testing and inspection of fire protection equipment.  The statute requires employees doing construction, maintenance or repair on public works be paid not less than the prevailing rate of wages. The Second Circuit was asked to review the Labor Department Commissioner's ruling that the statute applied to the testing and inspection of fire protection equipment, but only prospectively.  The Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals whether deference to the Labor Department's prospective application should be accorded, and further asked whether an employer who agrees to be bound to pay prevailing wages pursuant to section 220 has agreed to pay such wages for all work covered by the statute as the statute is reasonably interpreted, as opposed to only the types of work about which the law is settled at the time of the agreement.  The Court of Appeals determined the law should apply as it is correctly understood, not as the parties may have misunderstood it.  Ramos v SimplexGrinnell LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 07198, CtApp 10-23-14

 

/ ,

Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed organizations representing hundreds of lakeshore residents (PLA and Sandy Knolls) to intervene in an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding concerning an 80-year-old injunction re: the operation of a dam to control water levels in the lake.  The court held that the neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel nor laches was a bar to the relief sought by the lakeshore residents:

“Pursuant to CPLR 7802 (d), a court may allow other interested persons to intervene” in proceedings brought against public agencies … . Further, intervention is to be granted as of right in any action or proceeding where a nonparty demonstrates that its interest in the matter is not being duly represented and the nonparty may be “bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012 [a] [2]) or, alternatively, may be permitted by the court “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action [or proceeding] have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013…). * * *

Although requests for leave to intervene invoke a court’s discretionary authority …, the thorough and well-reasoned submissions of the PLA and Sandy Knolls have shown that they have a “‘direct and substantial interest’ in the outcome of this litigation” and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying their motions to intervene … . Further, inasmuch as the motions to intervene were filed in the months after Supreme Court issued its order in proceeding No. 1, but before the final judgment was rendered in that proceeding more than a year and one half later, and approximately two years before judgment was entered in proceeding No. 2, we do not agree that denial of the motions on untimeliness grounds was necessitated … . Nor are there any indicia of undue prejudice to petitioners that would warrant the exclusion of the proposed intervenors from the matters . In light of this determination, the argument that the PLA and Sandy Knolls should have been joined as necessary parties has become academic.

Next, we consider Supreme Court’s finding …that collateral estoppel principles precluded respondents from challenging the [injunction]. As a “narrower species of res judicata,” the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from retrying “an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity” … . In this regard, privity is an amorphous term not “susceptible to ease of application” …, and a court’s finding that differing parties are in privity requires consideration of “the character, right and extent of a party’s role in one proceeding as it bears on the intervention of the collateral estoppel doctrine in another” … . * * *[R]espondents were never given “a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling” …, nor were their interests properly represented by [the defendant in the original injunction action], so as to warrant the application of collateral estoppel … . Borst v International Paper Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 07224, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/ , ,

Post-Judgment Restraining Order Served On a New York Branch of a Foreign Bank, Pursuant to the Separate Entity Rule, Cannot Extend to Assets Held in Branches of the Bank Which Are Outside of New York

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissenting opinion, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the “separate entity” rule prohibited a restraining order served on a New York branch of a bank from extending to assets in other branches of the bank which are outside New York.  Here a restraining order was served on a New York Branch of a foreign bank headquarted in the United Kingdom and the plaintiff sought to apply the restraining order to $30 million held in a branch of that bank in the United Arab Emirates:

The separate entity rule, as it has been employed by lower New York courts and federal courts applying New York law, provides that even when a bank garnishee with a New York branch is subject to personal jurisdiction, its other branches are to be treated as separate entities for certain purposes, particularly with respect to CPLR article 62 prejudgment attachments and article 52 postjudgment restraining notices and turnover orders. In other words, a restraining notice or turnover order served on a New York branch will be effective for assets held in accounts at that branch but will have no impact on assets in other branches… . * * *

In large measure, the underlying reasons that led to the adoption of the separate entity rule still ring true today. The risk of competing claims and the possibility of double liability in separate jurisdictions remain significant concerns, as does the reality that foreign branches are subject to a multitude of legal and regulatory regimes. By limiting the reach of a CPLR 5222 restraining notice in the foreign banking context, the separate entity rule promotes international comity and serves to avoid conflicts among competing legal systems … . And although Motorola suggests that technological advancements and centralized banking have ameliorated the need for the doctrine, courts have continued to recognize the practical constraints and costs associated with conducting a worldwide search for a judgment debtor's assets … . Motorola Credit Corp v Standard Chartered Bank, 2014 NY Slip Op 07199, CtApp 10-23-14

 

/ ,

Heroin Upon Which Defendant Overdosed in His Cell Constituted “Dangerous Contraband”—Conviction for Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Third Department determined defendant’s conviction for promoting prison contraband in the first degree was supported by the evidence.  The contraband, heroin, was “dangerous” with the meaning of the statute because it endangered the safety of the defendant, who overdosed on the drug in his cell:

As noted by County Court, contraband will be considered dangerous under the statutory definition as long as it endangers the safety of “any person” (Penal Law § 205.00 [4]). Inasmuch as the heroin possessed by defendant clearly endangered his own safety, and he freely admitted that he used it to harm himself, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it constituted dangerous contraband and we do not find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence… . People v Verley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07208, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/ , , ,

Where Jail Time Is Contemplated as Punishment for Disobeying an Order of Protection, the Standard of Proof for Willful Contempt is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lahtinen, determined that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in a contempt proceeding where jail time was imposed as a punishment for disobeying an order of protection.  The court held the proof met the standard, but sentenced the respondent to time-served (11 days):

Case law has not been consistent regarding the level of proof when considering an alleged willful violation of a protective order … . This inconsistency may be due in part to the statutory silence as to the quantum of proof (see Family Ct Act § 846-a [stating that the court must be satisfied by “competent proof”]), as well as the fact that, like other statutes implicating contempt, a Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding can involve civil contempt, criminal contempt or both. Criminal and civil contempt have different levels of proof as “criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas “civil contempt . . . must be proven by clear and convincing evidence” … .

Where, as here, a person who has violated an order of protection is incarcerated as a punitive remedy for a definite period — with no avenue to shorten the term by acts that extinguish the contempt — then that aspect of the Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding “is one involving criminal contempt [and] [t]he standard of proof that must be met to establish that the individual willfully violated the court’s order is beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Matter of Stuart LL v Aimee KL, 2014 NY Slip Op 07222, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/

Injury While Trying to Prevent a Ladder (Used by a Co-worker) from Falling Is Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s accident was covered under Labor Law 240(1).  Plaintiff (Passantino) was steadying an unsecured ladder used by a co-worker.  When he let go of the ladder to pick up some cable, the ladder started to slip.  Plaintiff was injured while trying to prevent the ladder from falling:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hazard presented here is one contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Indeed, the harm to Passantino was “the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity” to the ladder … . The plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by demonstrating that the defendant failed to provide Passantino with a safety device, and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries… . Passantino v Made Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07136, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

/

Criteria for Common Law Negligence Re: Injury Caused by an Intoxicated Guest Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.  Plaintiff, upon leaving a party hosted by the defendants, was assaulted by three unidentified persons. The court explained the relevant common law criteria for finding a host negligent based upon the actions of an intoxicated guest:

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest …, although liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control …. “Without the requisite awareness [of the risk or threat] there is no duty” … . Colon v Pohl, 2014 NY Slip Op 07117, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

/ ,

City Provided Adequate Supervision at Beach—Drowning Action Dismissed

The Second Department determined an action against the city stemming from the drowning of plaintiff’s decedent at a protected beach was properly dismissed.  The court explained the relevant law:

Although the City is not an insurer of the safety of the users of its parks, including its beaches, it has the duty to maintain them in a “reasonably safe condition” … . This duty includes the City’s exercise of ordinary care by providing an “adequate degree of general supervision” … . In support of its motion for summary judgment, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it had furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent …, that they were adequately trained and properly certified …, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure … . Johnson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07126, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

/ ,

Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Second Department determined defendant’s resentencing violated the Double Jeopardy clause.  Defendant had been erroneously sentenced to five years for criminal possession of a weapon when the sentence apparently should have been 15 years.  After defendant’s successful habeas corpus action, his assault conviction was vacated and he was released from prison, having served 8 years.  Two months after his release, pursuant to a resettlement proceeding to correct an error in the sentencing transcript, the defendant was resentenced to 15 years and reincarcerated:

Courts possess “the inherent power to correct their records, where the correction relates to mistakes, or errors, which may be termed clerical in their nature, or where it is made in order to conform the record to the truth” … . This inherent authority extends to circumstances “where it clearly appears that a mistake or error occurred at the time a sentence was imposed” … . However, as with resentencing, an order correcting an error in a transcript of a sentencing proceeding is subject to a temporal limitation imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution … .

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a sentence from being increased once a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality of the sentence … . “[A] legitimate expectation of finality turns on the completion of a sentence” … . Here, the resettlement of the sentencing transcript almost three years after the sentence was purportedly satisfied, and more than two months after the defendant’s release from prison in purported full satisfaction of that sentence, violated the constitutional prohibition on subjecting a criminal defendant to double jeopardy. For more than seven years after the sentence was imposed, the People represented to the defendant, and to State and federal courts, that the transcript accurately reflected a five-year sentence. Accordingly, upon his release from prison, the defendant had served out his sentence “as reasonably understood by all the parties” … . He thus acquired a legitimate expectation of finality with respect to the sentence, and the later resettlement of the transcript of the sentencing proceeding violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause … . People v Langston, 2014 NY Slip Op 07182, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

/ ,

Title Insurance Company Insures Only Whether a Property Has Legal Access to a Street, Not Whether Physical Access to the Street Is Possible

The Second Department determined that the action against a title insurance company was properly dismissed.  The insured property abutted a street.  However, a retaining wall on the property blocked access to the street.  When a problem developed with respect to removing the retaining wall, the property owners sued the title insurance company.  The Second Department held that the title insurance company was only obligated to determine whether the property had  “legal access” to a street, not “physical access:”

The title insurance policies … insure against “[l]ack of a right of access to and from the land.” “[S]uch a provision refers to the absence of a legal right to access and does not cover claims concerning lack of an existing means of physical access” … . On its motion for summary judgment, Stewart established that [plaintiffs] have a legal right of access because the subject property abuts a public street … . 43 Park Owners Group LLC v Commonwealth Land Tit Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07120, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

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