T.F. Judson Jr. Co. v. Hartnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

T.F. Judson Jr. Co. v. Hartnett

177 A.D.2d 940, 579 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15662

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 940 (T.F. Judson Jr. Co. v. Hartnett) 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

T.F. Judson Jr. Co. v. Hartnett, 177 A.D.2d 940, 579 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: We find that the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner failed to pay its employee the prevailing wage pursuant to Labor Law § 220 (3) is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443). The determination that the violation was willful, however, is not supported by substantial evidence and thus, that determination must be annulled and the civil penalty imposed thereon vacated. The findings that petitioner was an experienced public work contractor and that petitioner failed to pay its employee the correct amount after it had been advised by the Department of Labor to do so are unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Green Is. Constr. Co. v Roberts, 139 AD2d 907, 908; Gross Plumbing & Heating Co. v Department of Labor, 133 AD2d 524). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: We find that the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner failed to pay its employee the prevailing wage pursuant to Labor Law § 220 (3) is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443). The determination that the violation was willful, however, is not supported by substantial evidence and thus, that determination must be annulled and the civil penalty imposed thereon vacated. The findings that petitioner was an experienced public work contractor and that petitioner failed to pay its employee the correct amount after it had been advised by the Department of Labor to do so are unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Green Is. Constr. Co. v Roberts, 139 AD2d 907, 908; Gross Plumbing & Heating Co. v Department of Labor, 133 AD2d 524). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Labor Law § 220.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 940, 579 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tf-judson-jr-co-v-hartnett-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack