Telecommunications Designs, Inc. v. Roberts

127 A.D.2d 976, 513 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43463
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 27, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 976 (Telecommunications Designs, Inc. v. Roberts) 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
Telecommunications Designs, Inc. v. Roberts, 127 A.D.2d 976, 513 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Determination and order unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner, a telecommunication installation contractor, seeks a review of a determination by respondent that its failure to pay correct benefits to workers and wages to apprentices was willful within the meaning of Labor Law § 220-b (3) (b). Petitioner does not dispute the definition of willfulness applied by respondent (see, [977]*977Matter of Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v Thacher, 12 NY2d 48, 56) but contends that the facts do not establish it. In a finding affirmed by respondent, the Hearing Examiner determined that petitioner had had a previous violation on "very similar charges”. Petitioner’s president testified that there had been another violation but said that it was at the same time as or after the work on the project which is the subject of this proceeding. The only basis in the record for finding a previous violation was an unsworn statement by respondent’s attorney that the first notice in the other matter was dated January 19, 1984, while work on the instant project was in progress. This statement was not evidence and no documents relating to the other violation were offered into evidence (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [2]). In view of the uncontroverted findings that petitioner was cooperative and paid the underpayment promptly when final agreement was reached on the amount, the record does not support a finding of willfulness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Therefore, the determination of willfulness is annulled and the fine imposed thereon is vacated. (Proceeding pursuant to Labor Law § 220-b [3] [b].) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Canarsie Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Goldin
151 A.D.2d 331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 976, 513 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telecommunications-designs-inc-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1987.