Matter of Geiger v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Geiger v. New York State Dept. of Labor

131 A.D.3d 887, 16 N.Y.S.3d 722

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15720 100296/14

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 887 (Matter of Geiger v. New York State Dept. 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

Matter of Geiger v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 131 A.D.3d 887, 16 N.Y.S.3d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated January 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, among other things, affirmed respondent New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) orders insofar as they found that petitioners failed to pay an employee overtime wages, failed to furnish true and accurate payroll records, and failed to provide each employee with a complete wage statement with every payment of wages for a certain time period, and insofar as the orders imposed interest and civil penalties for the violations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, J.], entered May 9, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

IBA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of petitioners’ employee and DOL’s investigators concerning overtime that was not reflected in petitioners’ payroll records (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). There is no basis to disturb IBA’s credibility determinations (id.). Although the union contract provided that overtime was required to be authorized, petitioners’ testimony indicated an awareness of the apparently unauthorized overtime, which IBA properly found was compensable to the employee (see Chao v Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F3d 280, 288-290 [2d Cir 2008]).

*888 We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York State Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated January 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, among other things, affirmed respondent New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) orders insofar as they found that petitioners failed to pay an employee overtime wages, failed to furnish true and accurate payroll records, and failed to provide each employee with a complete wage statement with every payment of wages for a certain time period, and insofar as the orders imposed interest and civil penalties for the violations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, J.], entered May 9, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

IBA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of petitioners’ employee and DOL’s investigators concerning overtime that was not reflected in petitioners’ payroll records (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). There is no basis to disturb IBA’s credibility determinations (id.). Although the union contract provided that overtime was required to be authorized, petitioners’ testimony indicated an awareness of the apparently unauthorized overtime, which IBA properly found was compensable to the employee (see Chao v Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F3d 280, 288-290 [2d Cir 2008]).

*888 We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 887, 16 N.Y.S.3d 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-geiger-v-new-york-state-dept-of-labor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack