Matter of Yick Wing Chan v. New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Yick Wing Chan v. New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals

120 A.D.3d 1120, 992 N.Y.S.2d 413

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

Docket12994 654588/12

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1120 (Matter of Yick Wing Chan v. New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals) 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 Yick Wing Chan v. New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals, 120 A.D.3d 1120, 992 N.Y.S.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated October 17, 2012, after a hearing, affirming, as amended, respondent New York State Commissioner of Labor’s Order to Comply, dated October 9, 2008, which directed petitioners to pay unpaid wages due eight claimants for the period April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2006, plus interest and penalties, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered June 20, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of *1121 Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-181 [1978]). Petitioners, who had the burden of proof at the hearing (see State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]; 12 NYCRR 65.30), provided testimony about the transfer of ownership of the restaurant that was too general to satisfy petitioners’ burden of establishing that the corporate petitioner could not be held liable for its predecessor’s acts. Thus, the burden never shifted to the Commissioner of Labor to establish successor liability. Petitioners’ submissions to this Court of material that was never presented to the IBA will not be considered.

The determination that petitioner Chan was an “employer” as defined by Labor Law § 190 (3) is supported by substantial evidence, including Chan’s own testimony that he “took over” the operation of the business in 2002, that he created a system by which to track employees’ work hours and instructed his staff as to using the system, and that he had to “keep an eye” on an “unreliable manager,” as well as the employees’ testimony that Chan was the “boss,” that he transferred workers from another location to the restaurant, and that he gave one of the claimants a raise, set his hours of work, and directed his work (see Herman v RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F3d 132, 139 [2d Cir 1999]; Bonito v Avalon Partners, Inc., 106 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated October 17, 2012, after a hearing, affirming, as amended, respondent New York State Commissioner of Labor’s Order to Comply, dated October 9, 2008, which directed petitioners to pay unpaid wages due eight claimants for the period April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2006, plus interest and penalties, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered June 20, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of *1121 Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-181 [1978]). Petitioners, who had the burden of proof at the hearing (see State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]; 12 NYCRR 65.30), provided testimony about the transfer of ownership of the restaurant that was too general to satisfy petitioners’ burden of establishing that the corporate petitioner could not be held liable for its predecessor’s acts. Thus, the burden never shifted to the Commissioner of Labor to establish successor liability. Petitioners’ submissions to this Court of material that was never presented to the IBA will not be considered.

The determination that petitioner Chan was an “employer” as defined by Labor Law § 190 (3) is supported by substantial evidence, including Chan’s own testimony that he “took over” the operation of the business in 2002, that he created a system by which to track employees’ work hours and instructed his staff as to using the system, and that he had to “keep an eye” on an “unreliable manager,” as well as the employees’ testimony that Chan was the “boss,” that he transferred workers from another location to the restaurant, and that he gave one of the claimants a raise, set his hours of work, and directed his work (see Herman v RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F3d 132, 139 [2d Cir 1999]; Bonito v Avalon Partners, Inc., 106 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1120, 992 N.Y.S.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-yick-wing-chan-v-new-york-indus-bd-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack