Local 237, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Comptroller of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Local 237, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Comptroller of New York

259 A.D.2d 314, 686 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 314 (Local 237, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Comptroller of New York) 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

Local 237, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Comptroller of New York, 259 A.D.2d 314, 686 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Labor Law § 220 (8) to annul an Order and Determination of respondent Comptroller dated August 10, 1998, which, inter alia, determined the prevailing rate of wages and benefits to be paid to two groups of employees in the title of Elevator Mechanic and ordered wage payments accordingly, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as untimely.

This proceeding, commenced more than 30 days from the notice of the filing of the order as to which review is sought in the office of the fiscal officer, is time-barred (Labor Law § 220 [8]; see, Bolovis v Polis Contr. Corp., 235 AD2d 323). In any case, were we not dismissing the proceeding, we would confirm the Comptroller’s determination. The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion, adopted by the Comptroller, that there should be a differential between the prevailing wage rates assigned the two groups of elevator mechanics here involved was not arbitrary and capricious in light of the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the two groups perform tasks of a different order of complexity and difficulty, one group being principally employed in ordinary maintenance and the other in non-routine repairs (see, Marangos Constr. Corp. v Department of Labor, 216 AD2d 758). The Administrative Law Judge’s differentiation of the work performed by the two groups is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, City of N. Y., Off. of Labor Relations v Comptroller of City of N. Y., 253 AD2d 596). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Labor Law § 220 (8) to annul an Order and Determination of respondent Comptroller dated August 10, 1998, which, inter alia, determined the prevailing rate of wages and benefits to be paid to two groups of employees in the title of Elevator Mechanic and ordered wage payments accordingly, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as untimely.

This proceeding, commenced more than 30 days from the notice of the filing of the order as to which review is sought in the office of the fiscal officer, is time-barred (Labor Law § 220 [8]; see, Bolovis v Polis Contr. Corp., 235 AD2d 323). In any case, were we not dismissing the proceeding, we would confirm the Comptroller’s determination. The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion, adopted by the Comptroller, that there should be a differential between the prevailing wage rates assigned the two groups of elevator mechanics here involved was not arbitrary and capricious in light of the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the two groups perform tasks of a different order of complexity and difficulty, one group being principally employed in ordinary maintenance and the other in non-routine repairs (see, Marangos Constr. Corp. v Department of Labor, 216 AD2d 758). The Administrative Law Judge’s differentiation of the work performed by the two groups is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, City of N. Y., Off. of Labor Relations v Comptroller of City of N. Y., 253 AD2d 596). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 314, 686 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/local-237-international-brotherhood-of-teamsters-v-comptroller-of-new-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack