You are here: / Labor Law
, ,

THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’ ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the NYS Employment Relations Act (SERA) is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes farm workers from the definition of “employees” given the right to organize and collectively bargain under the Act (Labor Law 701 [3] [a]):

… [P]laintiffs alleged that the farm laborer exclusion violates several provisions of the NY Constitution, including the right to organize and collectively bargain guaranteed to “[e]mployees” by article I, § 17 (first cause of action), the right to equal protection (second cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 11), the right to due process under the law (third cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 6), and the right to freedom of association (fourth cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 9).  * * *

… [T]he choice to use the broad and expansive word “employees” in NY Constitution, article I, § 17, without qualification or restriction, was a deliberate one that was meant to afford the constitutional right to organize and collectively bargain to any person who fits within the plain and ordinary meaning of that word … . * * *

… [W]e are firmly convinced that the constitutional right bestowed upon “employees” in this state “to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” (NY Const, art I, § 17) is a fundamental right, and that any statute impairing this right must withstand strict scrutiny … . Under strict scrutiny review, a statute that infringes upon a fundamental right is “void unless necessary to promote a compelling [s]tate interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose”… . …

… [W]e declare that the exclusion of “individuals employed as farm laborers” from SERA’s definition of the term “employees,” set forth in Labor Law § 701 (3) (a), is unconstitutional as a matter of law. Hernandez v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 5-23-19

 

, , ,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a minimum wage order applicable to home health aides was not irrational or unreasonable. The matter was sent back for consideration of other grounds for class certification:

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24-hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24-hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL’s interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York’s Labor Law, inclusive of defendants’ alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL’s interpretation. Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02258, CtApp 3-26-19

 

​

, ,

TIMELINESS OF A MOTION SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION IS MEASURED BY THE INITIAL MOTION, NOT A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RENEW AFTER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS WERE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PLAINTIFFS FROM RENEWING THE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER PAYROLL DATA TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should not have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of payroll data should have been granted. Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their Labor Law underpayment claims. Their initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss alleging the plaintiffs did not timely move to renew their motion for class certification. The Second Department held that it is the initial motion for class certification which determines timeliness, not any subsequent motion to renew. The court further held that defendants were effectively preventing plaintiffs from renewing their motion by refusing to turn over the payroll data:

The time limitation to file a motion for class certification “applies only to a motion for the initial certification of the class” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification was timely made. Moreover, while the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion, the defendants refused to provide material sought by the plaintiffs which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether the matter may proceed as a class action … . The items of discovery sought are material and necessary to the determination of whether the plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”… , and the evaluation of whether prosecuting or defending separate actions would be impractical or inefficient and any “difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action” … . Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the denial of defendant employer’s (SLSCO’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff employees’ breach of contract complaint. The complaint alleged that SLSCO and the subcontractor, PMJ, which employed plaintiffs, breached the prime employment contract by failing to pay the prevailing wage for work done for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The court noted the employees were third party beneficiaries of the contract and the clause in the contract which purported to prohibit third-party actions seeking the prevailing wage would be void as against public policy:

Plaintiffs are employees of PMJ. They commenced this action for breach of contract against PMJ and SLSCO, predicated upon a third-party contract beneficiary theory, alleging that PMJ failed to pay them prevailing wages as required by the terms of the prime contract … . …

Labor Law § 220(3) provides, in pertinent part, that wages paid to laborers, workers, or mechanics on a public works project shall be the prevailing rate of wages in that locality, and that the public works contracts, including subcontracts thereunder “shall contain a provision that each laborer, workman or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person about or upon such public work shall be paid the wages herein”. This statute “has as its entire aim the protection of workingmen against being induced, or obliged, to accept wages below the prevailing rate” and “must be construed with the liberality needed to carry out its beneficent purposes”… . In keeping with this liberal reading of the statute, the courts of this state have consistently held that, in public works contracts, a subcontractor’s employees have both an administrative remedy under the statute as well as a third-party right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor … . Wroble v Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng’g of N.Y., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08061, First Dept 11-27-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PREVAILING WAGE, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (CONTRACT LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s whistleblower (Labor Law 740) and fraudulent inducement causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the statutory criteria of Labor Law 740 and at-will employees who are laid off generally can not bring an action alleging fraudulent inducement:

[Labor Law 740] provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee . . . discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation” that either “creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or . . . constitutes health care fraud” (Labor Law § 740[2][a]).

While the plaintiff in a whistleblower action must prove, at trial, that an actual violation of law, rule, or regulation occurred … , it is not necessary, for pleading purposes, that the plaintiff identify in the complaint the specific law, rule, or regulation that the defendant allegedly violated … .

Here, while the amended complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of law, rule, or regulation, it fails to allege any substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety resulting from such violation … . …

“New York law is clear that absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express limitation in the individual contract of employment, an employer’s right at any time to terminate an employment at will remains unimpaired,” and the Court of Appeals has “repeatedly refused to recognize exceptions to, or pathways around, these principles” … . Hence, as a general rule, at-will employees may not claim that they were induced to accept their position based on the belief that they would enjoy continued employment …, “even where the circumstances pertain to a plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of a position rather than his or her termination” … . Since the plaintiff failed to allege any injury independent of termination of her employment, she cannot recover damages for what is, at most, an alleged breach of contract in the guise of a tort … . Coyle v College of Westchester, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07699, Second Dept 11-14-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS  (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW 740 (WHISTLEBLOWERS, LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, AT-WILL EMPLOYEE, (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/AT-WILL EMPLOYEES  (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the prevailing wage provision of Labor Law 220 was properly interpreted by the Department of Labor (DOL) to mean that apprentices who work outside of their apprenticeship training cannot be paid at the lower apprenticeship rate. Here apprentice glaziers who were doing ironwork when installing storefronts must be paid higher journey-level rates for ironwork:

… [T]he DOL interprets Labor Law § 220 (3-e) to mean that apprentices employed on public work projects may be paid apprentice rates only if they are performing tasks within the trade classification (e.g., “glazier,” “ironworker”) that is the subject of the apprenticeship program in which they are enrolled. Apprentices who are performing tasks, in the installation of storefronts, curtain wall, and preglazed windows, that are classified as ironwork tasks may be paid the apprentice rate only if they are enrolled in an ironworker apprentice program (approved by the DOL), as opposed to a glazier apprentice program. Apprentices learning any trade other than ironwork, including those enrolled in a glazier apprenticeship program, must be paid journey-level ironworker prevailing wages and benefit rates if they are engaged in the parts of a work process that are classified as ironwork tasks. * * *

Given that Labor Law § 220 as a whole was “intended to prevent employers from cutting standards of construction work by hiring an excessive number of unskilled employees, and to ensure that learning-level workers receive approved, supervised training” … , it was rational for the DOL to conclude that section 220 (3-e) prohibits employers from diluting standards by hiring apprentices to perform tasks in trades for which they are not training. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2018 NY Slip Op 06963, CtApp 10-18-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/LABOR LAW (APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/APPRENTICES (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))

, , , ,

ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action based upon exposure to lead in utero was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged his father’s clothes were saturated with lead at work:

At common law, employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace, but this duty has been limited to employees (see Labor Law § 200…). It has not, as the plaintiff contends, been extended to encompass individuals who were not employed at the worksite such as the plaintiff or his mother during her pregnancy … .

While “[a] landowner generally must exercise reasonable care, with regard to any activities which he carries on, for the protection of those outside of his premises'” … , the facts alleged in this case differ from those to which a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of individuals off site has been held to extend … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the alleged violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter OSHA) regulations … , the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 , specifically 29 USC § 654(a), and Labor Law § 27-a do not constitute negligence per se. The violation of OSHA regulations provides only evidence of negligence … . Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor his mother during her pregnancy belonged to the class intended to be protected by OSHA or its implementing regulations, 29 USC § 654(a), or Labor Law § 27-a, namely employees … . Campanelli v Long Is. Light. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06225, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for violation of the “prevailing wage” requirement of the Labor Law when plaintiff did work for a contractor (Zoria Housing) on properties owned by the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA):

… [T]he plaintiff stated viable breach of contact causes of action based on violations of statutorily mandated provisions in agreements between Zoria Housing and NYCHA, requiring the payment of prevailing wages and overtime pay. “In situations where the Labor Law requires the inclusion of a provision for payment of the prevailing wage in a labor contract between a public agency and a contractor, a contractual obligation is created in favor of the contractor’s employees, and an employee covered by or subject to the contract, in his or her status as third-party beneficiary to the contract, possesses a common-law cause of action against the contractor to recover damages for breach of such a contractual obligation” … . Here, the complaint alleges, in effect, that Zoria Housing failed to pay the plaintiff “prevailing wages” and overtime pay in breach of municipal contracts that included prevailing-wage and overtime provisions pursuant to the Labor Law (see generally Labor Law §§ 220, 231). The complaint thus stated viable breach of contract causes of action … . Singh v Zoria Hous., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05513, Second Dept 7-25-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that an unpleaded affirmative defense may be successfully raised to defeat a motion for summary judgment:

Defendants allegedly embezzled over $100,000 from plaintiffs, their alleged former employers. Plaintiffs then commenced this action for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants both counterclaimed for, inter alia, slander per se and the violations of Labor Law §§ 162 (2), 191 (3), 195 (1) (a), and 195 (5). Defendant Carrie Massaro also counterclaimed for a violation of section 198 and for unpaid overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) … . * * * … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff …. raises triable issues of fact regarding their potential entitlement to the affirmative defense provided by [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii). Contrary to defendants’ contention, ” [a]n unpleaded affirmative defense may be invoked to defeat a motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Thus, although the court properly refused to dismiss the [Labor Law] section 195 (1) (a) counterclaims, the court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on those same counterclaims given plaintiffs’ potential entitlement to the affirmative defense under [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii) … . Salahuddin v Craver, 2018 NY Slip Op 05429, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

, , ,

INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined there was sufficient evidence before the Grand Jury to support several counts dismissed by the motion court. The dismissed counts related to allegedly false information on business records about farm employees’ hours and pay and the employment of a minor (a 14-year-old killed operating heavy farm equipment) in violation of the Labor Law:

“To dismiss an indictment or counts thereof on the basis of insufficient evidence before a grand jury, a reviewing court must consider whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury” … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to ‘whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes,’ and whether ‘the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference'” … . * * *

Viewed most favorably to the People, we find that the evidence before the grand jury provided a prima facie case of falsifying business records in the first degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Although there was no proof that defendant himself compiled the relevant time sheets or submitted them to [the bookkeeper], the evidence established that employees reported their hours directly to defendant — who regularly paid them in cash off the books — and that defendant was solely responsible for the accuracy of the payroll information, personally certified the accuracy of two amended [the unemployment insurance] forms and instructed one of his employees to lie about the number of hours he worked. * * *

“[W]here an indictment count incorporates by reference the statutory provision applicable to the crime intended to be charged, it has been repeatedly held that this is sufficient to apprise [a] defendant of the charge and, therefore, renders the count jurisdictionally valid” … . Here, counts 14 and 15 of the indictment each begin by accusing defendant of the crime of prohibited employment of a minor in violation of Labor Law § 145, which provides that a knowing violation of a provision of article 4 of the Labor Law is punishable by a misdemeanor. While County Court correctly noted that Labor Law § 145 does not state a substantive offense, each count then goes on to specify the particular section of article 4 of the Labor Law which defendant is alleged to have violated, as well as the conduct forming the basis of the charges. People v Park, 2018 NY Slip Op 04985, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, FALSE BUSINESS RECORDS, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, GRAND JURY, EVIDENCE,  INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/MINORS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, LABOR LAW, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD 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