J. E. Roze Associates, Inc. v. Department of Labor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. E. Roze Associates, Inc. v. Department of Labor

143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 510 (J. E. Roze Associates, Inc. v. Department of Labor) 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

J. E. Roze Associates, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of the Commissioner of Labor that petitioner Apeo willfully failed to pay its employee prevailing wages is supported by substantial evidence. A violation of Labor Law § 220 is willful when the contractor acted knowingly, intentionally or deliberately (Matter of Green Is. Constr. Co. v Roberts, 139 AD2d 907; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts], 128 AD2d 1006) and where it knew or should have known of the violation (Gross Plumbing & Heating Co. v Department of Labor, 133 AD2d 524; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts] supra). There was testimony that Apco’s president and principal shareholder, James E. Roze, knew the difference between a journeyman and an apprentice, but that Apeo paid an employee as an apprentice when in fact he did the work of a journeyman. With respect to the charge that Apeo willfully ignored the requirement that an apprentice be enrolled in a registered training program, there is evidence that such requirement was known to Apco’s former co-owner, Jack Valder, and its present superintendent, Mark Kjar. The acts and knowledge of those individuals may be imputed to Apeo. (Proceeding pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of the Commissioner of Labor that petitioner Apeo willfully failed to pay its employee prevailing wages is supported by substantial evidence. A violation of Labor Law § 220 is willful when the contractor acted knowingly, intentionally or deliberately (Matter of Green Is. Constr. Co. v Roberts, 139 AD2d 907; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts], 128 AD2d 1006) and where it knew or should have known of the violation (Gross Plumbing & Heating Co. v Department of Labor, 133 AD2d 524; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts] supra). There was testimony that Apco’s president and principal shareholder, James E. Roze, knew the difference between a journeyman and an apprentice, but that Apeo paid an employee as an apprentice when in fact he did the work of a journeyman. With respect to the charge that Apeo willfully ignored the requirement that an apprentice be enrolled in a registered training program, there is evidence that such requirement was known to Apco’s former co-owner, Jack Valder, and its present superintendent, Mark Kjar. The acts and knowledge of those individuals may be imputed to Apeo. (Proceeding pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-e-roze-associates-inc-v-department-of-labor-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack