MATTER OF HULL-HAZARD, INC. v. Roberts

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF HULL-HAZARD, INC. v. Roberts

541 N.E.2d 412, 74 N.Y.2d 710, 543 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 678

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 541 N.E.2d 412 (MATTER OF HULL-HAZARD, INC. v. Roberts) 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

MATTER OF HULL-HAZARD, INC. v. Roberts, 541 N.E.2d 412, 74 N.Y.2d 710, 543 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 678 (N.Y. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversing so much thereof as annulled respondent’s determination of willfulness and, as so modified, affirmed.

The overtime pay policy of petitioner Hull Corporation (Hull) is identical to that policy previously ruled unlawful by respondent Commissioner of Labor in another administrative proceeding to which Hull was a party (see, Matter of Hull-Hazard, Inc. v Roberts, 72 NY2d 900, affg for the reasons stated below 129 AD2d 348 [Hull-Hazard I]). Thus, Hull cannot claim it was ignorant of the agency’s view regarding the meaning of the overtime pay provision contained in Labor Law § 220 (2). That respondent’s determination in this case was handed down prior to the decision of the Appellate Division in Hull-Hazard I is of no consequence. In adhering to its own contrary interpretation and placing itself in direct conflict with the agency position, Hull willfully violated the overtime pay provision of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Loll [Ross], 57 NY2d 116, 127; Matter of Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v Thacher, 12 NY2d 48, 55).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment modified, with costs to appellant, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversing so much thereof as annulled respondent’s determination of willfulness and, as so modified, affirmed.

The overtime pay policy of petitioner Hull Corporation (Hull) is identical to that policy previously ruled unlawful by respondent Commissioner of Labor in another administrative proceeding to which Hull was a party (see, Matter of Hull-Hazard, Inc. v Roberts, 72 NY2d 900, affg for the reasons stated below 129 AD2d 348 [Hull-Hazard I]). Thus, Hull cannot claim it was ignorant of the agency’s view regarding the meaning of the overtime pay provision contained in Labor Law § 220 (2). That respondent’s determination in this case was handed down prior to the decision of the Appellate Division in Hull-Hazard I is of no consequence. In adhering to its own contrary interpretation and placing itself in direct conflict with the agency position, Hull willfully violated the overtime pay provision of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Loll [Ross], 57 NY2d 116, 127; Matter of Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v Thacher, 12 NY2d 48, 55).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment modified, with costs to appellant, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 N.E.2d 412, 74 N.Y.2d 710, 543 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-hull-hazard-inc-v-roberts-ny-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack