You are here: / Labor Law
, ,

THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION UNDER CPLR 205(A) IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE PRIOR ACTION WAS VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED; HERE THE CPLR 205(A) EXTENSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A STATE ACTION WHICH PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO COMMENCE AFTER VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A SIMILAR FEDERAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month extension for the commencement of an action codified in CPLR 205 (a) was not available to the plaintiff because a similar federal action had been voluntarily discontinued by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had sued in federal court for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Labor Law. Plaintiff discontinued that action and brought a state action under the Labor Law. Because plaintiff could not take advantage of CPLR 205 (a), the state action was time-barred:

“CPLR 205(a) extends the time to commence an action after the termination of an earlier related action, where both actions involve the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences” … . However, the six-month grace period provided under CPLR 205(a) is not available where the previous action has been terminated by “a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits” … .

CPLR 205(a) was not applicable to this action, since the similar and timely commenced federal action was terminated by means of a voluntary discontinuance. A discontinuance effectuated pursuant to either CPLR 3217(a) or (b) constitutes a voluntary discontinuance for purposes of CPLR 205(a) … . Pursuant to a similar provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may be voluntarily dismissed either by a stipulation or notice, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1), or by a court order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(2). Thus, since the discontinuance here was affirmatively requested by the plaintiff and was granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(2), CPLR 205(a) was not available to extend the limitations period beyond the termination of the federal action … . Castillo v Suffolk Paving Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04239, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff voluntarily discontinued a federal action and brought a similar action in state court. Because the federal action was voluntarily discontinued, the six month extension for commencing an action under CPLR 205 (a) was not available to plaintiff and the state action was time-barred.

 

, , ,

ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ subpoena demanding that the nonparty NYS Department of Taxation and Finance turn over tax forms submitted by the corporate defendants should have been quashed. The plaintiffs brought a class action to recover unpaid wages and tips pursuant to Labor Law 196-d. The relevant portion of the Tax Law prohibits disclosure of the tax forms absent an order based upon an exception in the controlling statute:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Department’s motion which was to quash so much of the subpoena as sought “All Form NYS-45 for each quarter from 2009 until present submitted by or related to” the corporate defendants pursuant to Tax Law § 697 (see CPLR 2304). The Department established that it should not be required to disclose the information contained in any return filed with it, as, pursuant to Tax Law § 697(e)(1) and (2), “‘[e]xcept in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful’ for the [D]epartment or any of its officers to divulge the information contained in any return filed with it, and . . . it ‘shall not be required to produce any of them or evidence of anything contained in them in any action or proceeding in any court'” … . “[A] ‘proper order’ is one which either effectuates the enumerated exceptions within the statute or which arises out of a case in which the report is itself at issue, as in a forgery or perjury prosecution” … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to identify any exceptions to the statute … or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances … . Cornejo v Rose Castle Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance is not required to turn over tax forms pursuant to a subpoena absent a court order based upon an exception to the privacy/secrecy provisions in Tax Law section 697​.

 

, , ,

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.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract cause of action was sufficiently alleged. Although the complaint did not specifically identify the breached contract, the reference to the relevant provisions of the NYC Administrative Code and the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) permits gave sufficient notice of the nature of the claim:

… [P]laintiffs alleged that Con Edison failed to ensure payment of prevailing wages by codefendant … as required by the permits issued by the City Department of Transportation (DOT), in that it breached agreements required to be made, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-142, prior to obtaining such permits. Administrative Code § 19-142 required Con Edison “to agree that . . . the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles as established by the fiscal officer pursuant to section [220] of the labor law, paid to those so employed,” and provides that “[n]o permit shall be issued until such agreement shall have been entered into with the” DOT. As required by the Administrative Code, the DOT permits issued to Con Edison stated that the permittee was required, “before such permit may be issued, to agree . . . that the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles” established pursuant to Labor Law § 220 … …

… [T]he fact that the breach of contract cause of action in the complaint does not specifically identify the relevant contract but instead refers to “the promises required to be made pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 19-142 prior to obtaining such permits,” does not require dismissal. Despite the non-specificity, the complaint “give[s] sufficient notice of the nature of the claim” by referencing Administrative Code § 19-142 and the DOT permits … . Ross v No Parking Today, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00880, First Dept 2-20-24

Practice Point: Here the failure to identify the specific contract which was breached did not require dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action because the nature of the action was sufficiently alleged by reference to the applicable NYC Administrative Code provision and NYC Department of Transportation permits.

 

, , , ,

PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A DEBT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD MAY REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this suit against his employer seeking payment for work performed raised a question of fact whether the statute of limitations was revived by defendants’ partial payment:

There is a “long-standing common law rule” that partial payment of a debt, if made under “circumstances from which a promise to honor the obligation may be inferred,” will operate to start the statute of limitations running anew from the time the partial payment is made … . To show that the statute of limitations has been renewed by a partial payment, it must be shown that the payment was accompanied by circumstances amounting to “an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that, over a course of years, the defendants made repeated assurances that they would pay him salary and bonus money that he was owed pursuant to his employment arrangement. Further, he alleged that the defendants made a partial payment of outstanding bonus money to the plaintiff on July 17, 2015, within the statute of limitations. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or revived … . Costello v Curan & Ahlers, LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op 00758, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Partial payment of a debt made within the statute of limitations period may revive or toll the statute of limitations for an action based on the debt.

 

, ,

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.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WITHOUT SPECIFYING PARTICULAR DATES OR WEEKS; AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Labor Law and the proof submitted by defendant did not support a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence:

Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently states a claim for unpaid overtime wages in violation of Labor Law §§ 191 and 663 and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 … . Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated for hours spent before and after their shift, loading company vehicles and receiving job assignments, before traveling to construction sites throughout the New York City region … . Although the complaint does not contain the particular dates or weeks that plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid, it provides sufficient notice of their causes of action for unpaid wages and overtime based on pre-shift and post-shift work performed at defendant’s yard … .

In addition, defendant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to support a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1). Dismissal on the basis of documentary evidence is appropriate only if that evidence “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Affidavits are not documentary evidence that can support a 3211(a)(1) motion … . The documentary evidence fails to utterly refute plaintiffs’ claim that they were not timely paid overtime compensation. Despite defendant’s assertions, it is unclear whether the daily reports submitted with its motion properly reflect the alleged work performed before plaintiffs’ shifts began or after their shifts had purportedly ended. Rosario v Hallen Constr. Co., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01490, First Dept 3-21-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime despite the absence of specific dates or week when plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid.

Practice Point: A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence is not supported when the documents are affidavits.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for employment discrimination, failure to pay overtime, and failure to pay weekly:

… [P]laintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for employment discrimination under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws … . Plaintiff alleges that she is a member of a protected class; that she was qualified for the position by, among other things, having a decade of experience in leadership roles; and that she was subject to an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . Specifically, plaintiff, a Black woman, alleges that her supervisor … , irritated that she had telephoned Human Resources for advice, allegedly stated to her the night before her termination, “Why did you call HR? Blacks . . . I should have never hired her.”

… [W]e find that she has sufficiently stated a claim for unpaid overtime under the Labor Law by alleging that she worked more than 40 hours per week and that defendants never paid her for the overtime (CPLR 3013 …).

Plaintiff’s claim based on defendants’ failure to pay her weekly also is sufficiently pleaded, as she alleges that she was a nonexempt employee under Labor Law § 190, and that defendants were required to pay her each week as a manual worker under New York Labor Law § 191. Kirby v Carlo’s Bakery 42nd & 8th LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00059, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated causes of action for employment discrimination (a racist remark just prior to her termination), as well as failure to pay overtime and failure to pay weekly in violation of the Labor Law.

 

,

PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW SECTION 511, THE NEW YORK CITY SUPPER CLUB WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF THE MUSICIANS, DANCERS AND OTHER PERFORMERS WHO ENTERTAINED AT THE CLUB; THEREFORE THE CLUB WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO MAKE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PERFORMERS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined that the musicians, dancers and other artists who performed at a New York City supper club (Griffs) were not employees of the club under Labor Law 511. Therefore the club was not obligated to make additional unemployment insurance contributions with respect to those performers:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a), the term employment includes “any service by a person for an employer . . . as a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts, and performing services as such for a . . . restaurant, night club or similar establishment unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by [the Labor Law]” … . “The statute, which was designed to extend the availability of unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation benefits to those in the performing arts, creates a rebuttal presumption of employment” … — a presumption that may be rebutted by a written contract establishing that the performer in question is the employee of another covered employer … . …

… [T]he sole contested issue is whether a provision contained within the written agreements executed by the performers established that they were “employee[s] of another employer covered by [the Labor Law]” (Labor Law § 511 [1] [b] [1-a]). To that end, paragraph No. 8 of the performers’ contracts with Griffs provides, in relevant part, that Griffs “is not nor shall become [the performers’] employer, as other corporations employ them” … . Matter of Griffs Global Corp. (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 06670, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Under Labor Law 511 the musicians, dancers and other performers who entertained at the New York City supper club were not employees of the club because their contracts stated they were employees of other corporations. Therefore, the club was not required to make unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of the performers.

 

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy