Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Sweeney

224 A.D.2d 989, 637 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 989 (Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Sweeney) 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

Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Sweeney, 224 A.D.2d 989, 637 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because this proceeding was instituted to vindicate a public interest, respondent was not required to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1) (see, Union Free School Dist. No. 6 v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, 379-380, rearg denied 36 NY2d 807; Board of Educ. v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 704, 705). Respondent may on his own initiative cause a compliance investigation to be made (see, Labor Law § 220 [7]; Matter of Sierra Telecom Servs. v Hartnett, 174 AD2d 279, 284, appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1039, cert denied 507 US 972). The proceeding was timely commenced (see, Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). The requirement that an order or determination be made within six months from the date the compliance investigation is initiated (see, Labor Law § 220 [7]) is directory, not mandatory (see, Guercio v Gerosa, 8 AD2d 250, 255, affd 8 NY2d 1104) and the lapse of time in rendering an administrative determination, standing alone, does not constitute prejudice as a matter of law (see, Matter of Harris & Assocs. v deLeon, 84 NY2d 698, 702; Matter of Corning Glass Works v Ovsanik, 84 NY2d 619, 623-624). The record does not support petitioner’s contention that the employees on the proj[990]*990ect were classified and graded civil service employees. Thus, those employees are entitled to the prevailing wage rate (see, Matter of Tenalp Constr. Corp. v Roberts, 141 AD2d 81, 85; cf., Matter of Buffalo Bldg. Trades Council v Board of Educ., 36 NY2d 782, 783). Finally, the record supports respondent’s determination that the work involved was part of a public work project subject to the requirements of Labor Law § 220. (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because this proceeding was instituted to vindicate a public interest, respondent was not required to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1) (see, Union Free School Dist. No. 6 v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, 379-380, rearg denied 36 NY2d 807; Board of Educ. v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 704, 705). Respondent may on his own initiative cause a compliance investigation to be made (see, Labor Law § 220 [7]; Matter of Sierra Telecom Servs. v Hartnett, 174 AD2d 279, 284, appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1039, cert denied 507 US 972). The proceeding was timely commenced (see, Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). The requirement that an order or determination be made within six months from the date the compliance investigation is initiated (see, Labor Law § 220 [7]) is directory, not mandatory (see, Guercio v Gerosa, 8 AD2d 250, 255, affd 8 NY2d 1104) and the lapse of time in rendering an administrative determination, standing alone, does not constitute prejudice as a matter of law (see, Matter of Harris & Assocs. v deLeon, 84 NY2d 698, 702; Matter of Corning Glass Works v Ovsanik, 84 NY2d 619, 623-624). The record does not support petitioner’s contention that the employees on the proj[990]*990ect were classified and graded civil service employees. Thus, those employees are entitled to the prevailing wage rate (see, Matter of Tenalp Constr. Corp. v Roberts, 141 AD2d 81, 85; cf., Matter of Buffalo Bldg. Trades Council v Board of Educ., 36 NY2d 782, 783). Finally, the record supports respondent’s determination that the work involved was part of a public work project subject to the requirements of Labor Law § 220. (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 989, 637 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cayuga-onondaga-counties-board-of-cooperative-educational-services-v-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack