Bodrick v. Mayfair Construction Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Bodrick v. Mayfair Construction Corp.

346 N.E.2d 820, 38 N.Y.2d 926, 382 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2366

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 820 (Bodrick v. Mayfair Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bodrick v. Mayfair Construction Corp., 346 N.E.2d 820, 38 N.Y.2d 926, 382 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2366 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed and the certified question answered in the negative.

The regulations of subtitle A of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted by the United States Secretary of Labor and existing during the period in question, evidenced a design and charting of course for the conduct of investigations and hearings in prevailing wage disputes only as the secretary, in his discretion, deemed appropriate or desirable (see, e.g., 29 CFR 5.10). There being no exclusive administrative remedy prescribed therein, the aggrieved employees were empowered to enforce, by private litigation, the benefits afforded them under the National Housing Act, as set forth in section 1701 et seq. of title 12 of the United States Code (cf. Filardo v Foley Bros., 297 NY 217, revd on other grounds 336 US 281), even though the regulations, made pursuant to statute, did not explicitly authorize a civil remedy (cf. Case Co. v Borak, dll US 426, 432; Texas & Pacific Ry. v Rigsby, 241 US 33, 39; Jordan Bldg. Corp. v Doyle, O’Connor & Co., 401 F2d 47, 49-50; Fischman v Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F2d 783, 787).

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

Memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed and the certified question answered in the negative.

The regulations of subtitle A of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted by the United States Secretary of Labor and existing during the period in question, evidenced a design and charting of course for the conduct of investigations and hearings in prevailing wage disputes only as the secretary, in his discretion, deemed appropriate or desirable (see, e.g., 29 CFR 5.10). There being no exclusive administrative remedy prescribed therein, the aggrieved employees were empowered to enforce, by private litigation, the benefits afforded them under the National Housing Act, as set forth in section 1701 et seq. of title 12 of the United States Code (cf. Filardo v Foley Bros., 297 NY 217, revd on other grounds 336 US 281), even though the regulations, made pursuant to statute, did not explicitly authorize a civil remedy (cf. Case Co. v Borak, dll US 426, 432; Texas & Pacific Ry. v Rigsby, 241 US 33, 39; Jordan Bldg. Corp. v Doyle, O’Connor & Co., 401 F2d 47, 49-50; Fischman v Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F2d 783, 787).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 N.E.2d 820, 38 N.Y.2d 926, 382 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodrick-v-mayfair-construction-corp-ny-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack