Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC

13 A.D.3d 285, 787 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15627
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 285 (Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 13 A.D.3d 285, 787 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered May 16, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from, [286]*286denied the motion by third-party defendant Taman Management Corp. for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Gorgonio Balbuena’s claim for lost earnings, modified, on the law, to grant such motion to the extent of dismissing such claim to the extent it seeks damages based on the wages that plaintiff Balbuena might have earned illegally in the United States, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As more fully discussed in the decision in Sanango v 200 E. 16th St. Hous. Corp. (13 AD3d 349 [2004]) in light of the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (8 USC § 1324a et seq., as added by Pub L 99-603, 100 US Stat 3359, as amended) and the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v National Labor Relations Bd. (535 US 137 [2002]), it is our view that plaintiff, as an admitted undocumented alien, is not entitled to recover lost earnings damages based on the wages he might have earned illegally in the United States. Rather than simply dismiss the lost earnings claim, however, we limit plaintiffs recovery for lost earnings to the wages he would have been able to earn in his home country, since an award based on a prevailing foreign wage would not offend any federal policy. Concur—Nardelli, J.E, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gomez v. F & T International LLC
16 Misc. 3d 867 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.
469 F.3d 219 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.
30 A.D.3d 187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Balbuena v. IDR REALTY LLC
845 N.E.2d 1246 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
Oro v. 23 East 79th Street Corp.
10 Misc. 3d 82 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Sosa
907 So. 2d 1239 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Rosa v. Partners in Progress, Inc.
868 A.2d 994 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2005)
Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing Corp.
15 A.D.3d 36 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 285, 787 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balbuena-v-idr-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2004.