You are here: / Labor Law
, , ,

ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the disclosure of tax returns is disfavored, but agreed with Supreme Court that disclosure of the redacted returns in this Labor-Law/employment-law dispute was warranted:

Plaintiffs claim that between 2010 and 2016 defendant employed them as a caretaker for her ailing aunt and that defendant violated, inter alia, several sections of the Department of Labor Regulations (12 NYCRR) requiring overtime pay, a minimum wage, and additional pay for split shifts. Defendant denies that she was plaintiffs’ employer for purposes of the regulations and provisions of the Labor Law, but admits that she paid plaintiffs by check from 2014 to 2016, albeit on her aunt’s behalf. Plaintiffs claim they were paid in cash by defendant between 2010 and 2013. Defendant, who denies that she was the source of the cash payments, seeks plaintiffs’ federal and state tax returns for 2010 to 2013, claiming she needs the returns to verify the cash amounts, as well as plaintiffs’ assertion that they were employees, and not independent contractors.

… [D]efendant demonstrated both that the specific information ordered disclosed was necessary to defend the action, and unavailable from other sources … . Since plaintiffs were paid in cash between 2010 and 2013 and there is no other evidence in the record establishing who paid their wages and how much they were paid during those years, defendant showed a specific need for the production of the three years of tax returns, which might show the amounts claimed by plaintiffs as income from the caretaker work, as well as whether they claimed the income as wages or as money earned through self-employment. Defendant demonstrated that investigating plaintiffs’ bank accounts would be inconclusive, since pay deposited in the accounts could have been commingled with other amounts, and because one of the plaintiffs claimed that she used several banking institutions and did not make deposits on a predictable basis. We note that the court already inspected the tax returns in camera and deemed them relevant. Currid v Valea, 2020 NY Slip Op 03590, First Dept 6-25-20

 

,

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS A SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PLAY ACT CLARIFIED; MATTER REMITTED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD FOR A DECISION WHETHER CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR USING THE CORRECT ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and remitting the matter, clarified the meaning of the first criterion for determining whether claimant is an employee or an independent contractor pursuant to the so-called separate business entity test under the Fair Play Act. Here, the Board found that the claimant was an employee of Adelchi entitled to unemployment benefits, but the Third Department, agreeing with Adelchi’s argument, held the Board had not applied the proper criteria to its analysis:

The issue [is] whether claimant could be viewed as a separate business entity and, in that regard, Adelchi argues that the Board misconstrued the first criterion of the separate business entity test by demanding proof of a total lack of direction or control over a business entity (see Labor Law § 861-c [2] [a]). Adelchi contends that this criterion of the separate business entity test instead codifies the common-law rule that “[a]n employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence demonstrates that the employer exercises control over the results produced by claimant or the means used to achieve the results” … , which involves a fact-specific inquiry where “the relevant indicia of control will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the work” … . * * *

We … conclude that the first criterion in the separate business entity test does not require a contractor to show a total lack of direction or control over a business entity, but instead that their relationship as a whole did not show sufficient “control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” by the contractor to reflect an employer-employee relationship … . Although the factual findings already made by the Board would appear to permit the determination that Adelchi did not meet the first criterion under the proper analysis, we are constrained to reverse and remit so that the Board may answer that question in the first instance … . Matter of Tuerk (Adelchi Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03441, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, ,

A PART-TIME COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN ASSURED OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE SEMESTER FOLLOWING THE SUMMER BREAK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, a part-time community college instructor, should not have been awarded unemployment benefits because he had been notified he would be employed in the semester after the summer break. The dissenters argued his employment depended upon course-enrollment which was uncertain:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10), “professionals who are employed by educational institutions are precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic periods if they have received a reasonable assurance of continued employment” … . “A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period … . * * *

On the record before us, the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence … . inasmuch as claimant received a reasonable assurance of continued employment for the 2018 fall semester such that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits … . Matter of Barnett (Broome County Community Coll.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 02229, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

, ,

LABOR LAW 198-b, WHICH PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER’S COLLECTING KICKBACKS FROM AN EMPLOYEE, DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law 198-b, which essentially prohibits an employer from collecting kickbacks from and employee, did not create a private right of action:

Plaintiff, a former teacher at defendant Utica Academy of Science Charter School (UASCS), commenced this action seeking to recover damages based upon allegations that there in which plaintiff was required to provide donations to [defendant] High Way in the form of illegal kickbacks of his salary under threat of demotion or termination. In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct violated Labor Law § 198-b, and plaintiff sought damages arising from that violation pursuant to Labor Law § 198. …

Although we offer no opinion with respect to whether other provisions within article 6 of the Labor Law afford private rights of action, we agree with High Way that the legislature did not intend to create a private right of action for violations of Labor Law § 198-b … , inasmuch as ” [t]he [l]egislature specifically considered and expressly provided for enforcement mechanisms’ in the statute itself” … . Indeed, by its express terms, a violation of section 198-b constitutes a misdemeanor offense … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 01827, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , ,

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SEEKING OVERTIME PAY IN FEDERAL COURT ON THE GROUND NO NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED DID NOT PRECLUDE, PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, AN ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of the action concerning overtime pay in federal court, on the ground no notice of claim had been filed, did not preclude the action in Supreme Court seeking leave to file a late notice of claim:

… [T]he federal court dismissed the New York Labor Law claims for failure to file a timely notice of claim (see County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e). …

… [S]o much of the petition as sought leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc is not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Although collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue which was raised and decided in a prior action or proceeding … , the issue of whether the petitioners could obtain leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) was not litigated or decided by the 2017 federal order. As the issue was not litigated, the petitioners are not precluded from raising it … .

Res judicata also is inapplicable to so much of the petition as sought leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … . Since the federal court was without jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioners could obtain leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[7]), the petitioners are not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking a determination of this issue … . Matter of Chodkowski v County of Nassau, 2020 NY Slip Op 01058, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this class action seeking unpaid wages and overtime, determined Supreme Court should not have. sua sponte, declared certain opt-out statements (opting out of the class action settlement) invalid because the issue was not raised by the plaintiff’s motion and the opt-out statements were not properly before the court:

Pursuant to the February 2018 order, all class members who did not opt out were permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that were released pursuant to the settlement agreement. The February 2018 order also contained a handwritten provision declaring that “[t]he opt outs received on 1/26/18 from Lee Litigation Group are deemed invalid as they were dated prior to the Class Notice which was sent 12/27/17, and do not contain the required opt-out language pursuant to the Class-Notice ordered by this court on November 22, 2017.” Such relief was not sought in the motion filed by the plaintiffs nor was it contained in the proposed order submitted to the court by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  …

CPLR 908 provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court,” and that “[n]otice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, declared invalid certain opt-out statements that were not part of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and which relief was not requested in the motion. “[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the court strayed from this principle … . The relief awarded by the court, sua sponte, in the handwritten provision in the February 2018 order is “dramatically unlike” the relief sought by the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the appellants … . Moreover, the opt-out statements referred to in the February 2018 order were not among the exhibits submitted on the plaintiffs’ motion, and therefore were not properly before the court for consideration … . Robinson v Big City Yonkers, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT ALLEGATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXPLOIT THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs in this putative class action alleging wage-underpayment in violation of Labor Law article 6 could not be compelled to arbitrate. Plaintiffs were not parties to the contracts with defendants which compelled arbitration and did not seek to exploit the benefits of those contracts:

… [U]nder limited circumstances nonsignatories may be compelled to arbitrate” … . Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits” the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . Where the benefits are merely “indirect,” a nonsignatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate a claim … . “A benefit is indirect where the nonsignatory exploits the contractual relation of the parties, but not the agreement itself” … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs should not be compelled to arbitrate based upon the agreements. The record does not establish that the plaintiffs were even aware of the existence of the agreements or that they knowingly exploited the benefits of the agreements … . Arboleda v White Glove Enter. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00098, Second Dept 1-8-20

, , ,

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).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff banquet server had stated a cause of action against the Cortses (an officer and a shareholder in the corporation, Falkirk Management, sued by plaintiff) individually alleging the Cortses were plaintiff’s employers within the meaning of Labor Law 196-d and did not remit service charges and gratuities to the waitstaff; (2) corporate shareholders and officers like the Cortes can be liable for corporate violations of the Labor Law; plaintiff’s discovery demands were burdensome or immaterial and therefore improper (CPLR 3101(a)); (3) plaintiff’s request for an extension to move for class certification should have been granted (CPLR 901(a); 902); and (4) plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted:

… [T]he complaint alleged that the Cortses exercised control over the “day-to-day operations” of “[the Country Club],” including “authority regarding the pay practices” of Falkirk Management. * * *

… [T]he information sought by the plaintiff in her first set of interrogatories and first request for the production of documents was largely burdensome or immaterial, and consequently, palpably improper … . * * *

A plaintiff’s need to conduct pre-class certification discovery to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) can be satisfied constitutes good cause for the extension of the 60-day time period fixed by CPLR 902 … . * * *

[Re: the motion to amend the complaint:] the defendants alleged no surprise or prejudice … . Moreover, the proposed amendments are not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . Lomeli v Falkirk Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00115, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED BY THE FILING OF SIMILAR ACTIONS ALLEGING THE UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES TO HOME HEALTH AIDES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss these “wage-underpayment” actions as time-barred to the extent they seek damages for underpayment more than six years before the suits were brought was properly denied. The Second Department held that, pursuant to American Pipe & Constr. Co. v Utah, 414 US 538, the statute of limitations was tolled based upon the filing of prior similar actions:

The plaintiffs, home health aides who were employed by the defendants Americare Certified Special Services, Inc., and Americare, Inc. (hereinafter together Americare), and who often worked 24-hour “live in” shifts, seek to recover damages for underpayment of minimum, overtime, and “spread of hours” wages in violation of the Labor Law and New York State Department of Labor wage orders and regulations. * * *

We find that … applying American Pipe tolling under the circumstances, where a court has not previously addressed the impropriety of class certification, is consistent with the policies underlying the tolling doctrine: avoiding multiplicity of suits and vexatious litigation … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss … . Badzio v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08389, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES FOR MANUAL LABOR PURSUANT TO THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF WAS PAID BI-WEEKLY; THE LABOR LAW REQUIRES PAYMENT WEEKLY (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department determined plaintiff stated causes of action under the Labor Law stemming from her employer’s paying her bi-weekly, rather than weekly, for manual labor, in violation of Labor Law 191. Plaintiff sought liquidated damages, interest and attorney’s fees pursuant to Labor Law 198 (1-a).  The bi-weekly payments were deemed “underpayment” and the Labor Law provided plaintiff with a private right of action:

… [T]he term underpayment encompasses the instances where an employer violates the frequency requirements of section 191(1)(a) but pays all wages due before the commencement of an action. “In the absence of any controlling statutory definition, we construe words of ordinary import with their usual and commonly understood meaning, and in that connection have regarded dictionary definitions as useful guideposts’ in determining the meaning of a word or phrase” … . The word underpayment is the noun for the verb underpay; underpay is defined as “to pay less than what is normal or required” … . The moment that an employer fails to pay wages in compliance with section 191(1)(a), the employer pays less than what is required. …

In interpreting the liquidated damages provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Supreme Court has held that, regardless of whether an employee has been paid wages owed before the commencement of the action, the statute provides a liquidated damages remedy for the “failure to pay the statutory minimum on time,” … Labor Law § 198(1-a), although not identical to the FLSA liquidated damages provision (29 USC § 216[b]), has “no meaningful differences, and both are designed to deter wage-and-hour violations in a manner calculated to compensate the party harmed” … . …

Labor Law § 198(1-a) expressly provides a private right of action for a violation of Labor Law § 191. Defendant’s position that no private right of action exists is dependent on its erroneous assertion that the late payment of wages is not an underpayment of wages.

Furthermore, even if Labor Law § 198 does not expressly authorize a private action for violation of the requirements of Labor Law § 191, a remedy may be implied since plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted, the recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the statute and the creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme … . Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06459, First Dept 9-10-19

 

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