Balbuena v. Idr Realty LLC
| Decision Date | 21 February 2006 |
| Citation | 845 N.E.2d 1246,6 N.Y.3d 338 |
| Parties | Gorgonio BALBUENA et al., Appellants, v. IDR REALTY LLC et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Taman Management Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant. Stanislaw Majlinger, Respondent, v. Cassino Contracting Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
A. Lichtman of counsel), for appellants in the first above-entitled action.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Caitlin J. Halligan, Patricia Smith, Seth Kupferberg and Richard Dearing of counsel), for intervenor-appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York City (Francesca E. Connolly of counsel), for respondents in the first above-entitled action.
Smith & Laquercia, LLP, New York City (Reed M. Podell and Edwin L. Smith of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Andrew Zajac, Douglas J. Hayden, Dawn C. DeSimone, Rona L. Platt, Paul L. Isaacson and Ross P. Masler of counsel), for Defense Association of New York, Inc. and another, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., Timothy R. Capowski and Christopher Simone of counsel), Daniel J. Popeo, Washington, D.C., Richard Samp and Sherman Joyce for Washington Legal Foundation and another, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Amy Sugimori, New York City, and Catherine Ruckelshaus for National Employment Law Project and another, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., New York City (Anne Marie O'Donovan of counsel), for James Atleson and others, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Muzaffar Chishti, New York City (Michael J. Wishnie of counsel), and Clifford Chance LLP (Joel M. Cohen and Angelique M. Shingler of counsel) for Associated Corset and Brassiere Manufacturers, Inc. and others, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Miguel G. Ortiz, Selkirk, for Albany/Capital District Chapter of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.
O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP, New York City (Brian O'Dwyer of counsel), for Emerald Isle Immigration Center, and another, amici curiae in the first above-entitled action.
Smith & Laquercia, LLP, New York City (Reed M. Podell and Edwin L. Smith of counsel), for Cassino Contracting Corp. and another, appellants in the second above-entitled action.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York City (Scott T. Horn of counsel), and DeCicco Gibbons & McNamara, P.C. for Jack Thaon and others, appellants in the second above-entitled action.
Faden & Goldmacher, Westbury (Beth J. Goldmacher of counsel), and Jacobson & Schwartz, Rockville Centre (Henry J. Cernitz of counsel), for D & Sons Construction Corp., appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Daniel Smirlock of counsel), for intervenor-respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Plaintiffs, who are not United States citizens or lawfully admitted resident aliens, allege that they were injured while working on construction sites and have commenced personal injury litigation predicated on defendants' purported violations of the state Labor Law. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs' status as aliens who are not legally authorized to work in the United States precludes their recovery of lost earnings.
Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC et al.
Gorgonio Balbuena is a native of Mexico who entered the United States without the permission of federal immigration authorities. In April 2000, he was employed as a construction worker by third-party defendant Taman Management Corp. on a site owned and managed by defendants IDR Realty LLC and Dora Wechler. According to Balbuena, he fell from a ramp while pushing a wheelbarrow, sustaining severe head trauma and other debilitating injuries that have rendered him incapacitated and unable to work.
Balbuena and his wife sued defendants1 for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6), seeking various categories of damages, including past wages from the time of the accident until a verdict and the future loss of earnings (collectively referred to as lost wages). During discovery, Taman sought documentation from Balbuena demonstrating that he had obtained the necessary authorization to work in the United States as required by federal law. After Balbuena objected to this request and failed to produce such documentation, Taman moved for a court order resolving the immigration and work authorization issues. Taman also sought partial summary judgment dismissing Balbuena's claim for lost wages, relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 [2002], which held that an undocumented alien who provided fraudulent work papers in violation of federal law could not be awarded back pay for work not performed as a result of an employer's unfair labor practice. Taman argued that state tort law is preempted by federal law, as construed in Hoffman and, hence, an award of lost wages to Balbuena would undermine national immigration policies. In opposition to the motion, Balbuena admitted that he did not possess work authorization documents but argued that Hoffman was distinguishable from his legal claims and did not bar recovery for state Labor Law violations.
Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that state law allows an undocumented alien to recover lost wages and that Hoffman did not apply to tort actions brought under state law. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified by granting Taman's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Balbuena's claim for lost earnings to the extent it sought damages based on wages plaintiff might have earned in the United States. Relying on its decision in Sanango v. 200 E. 16th St. Hous. Corp., 15 A.D.3d 36, 788 N.Y.S.2d 314 [1st Dept. 2004], the Court determined that an alien who has not obtained work authorization is precluded by Hoffman from claiming lost wages derived from income earned in the United States, but may seek wages based on income that could be earned in the alien's home country. A dissenting Justice voiced a contrary view, finding that federal immigration law did not prohibit past and future wage claims under state law. The Appellate Division subsequently permitted the Attorney General to intervene in the case, denied reargument and granted leave to appeal to this Court.
Majlinger v. Cassino Contr. Corp.
Stanislaw Majlinger came to the United States in November 2000 from Poland on a travel visa, but remained in this country to work after his visa expired. In January 2001, he was employed as a construction worker by J & C Home Improvement, a subcontractor on a building project being developed by the various defendants in this case in their capacity as property owners, contractors or their agents. Like Gorgonio Balbuena, Majlinger never received authorization from federal immigration authorities to work in the United States.
Majlinger alleges that he was installing siding on the exterior of a building while standing on a scaffold approximately 15 feet off the ground when the scaffold suddenly collapsed, causing him to sustain serious physical injuries. Majlinger initiated a lawsuit, claiming defendants were liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and § 241(6). Among other damages, Majlinger sought earnings lost as a result of his purported inability to work. In response to discovery requests by defendants Cassino Contracting Corp. and Veteran Properties Inc., Majlinger conceded that he had not acquired the necessary work authorization documentation. Cassino and Veteran, together with other defendants and a third-party defendant, moved for partial summary judgment dismissing Majlinger's claim for lost wages based on his status as an undocumented alien pursuant to Hoffman, federal immigration law and preemption principles.
Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to defendants and dismissed Majlinger's claim for lost wages "[o]n constraint of Hoffman." (1 Misc.3d 659, 662, 766 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2003].) After granting the Attorney General permission to intervene, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and reinstated the damages claim for lost wages. Disagreeing with the First Department's decisions in Balbuena, 13 A.D.3d 285, 787 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2004] and Sanango, the Second Department concluded that state tort law is not preempted by federal immigration law because neither federal statutes nor Hoffman prohibit an undocumented alien from recovering lost wages in a personal injury action. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to this Court.
The central issue in these appeals, stated broadly, is whether an undocumented alien injured at a work site as a result of state Labor Law violations is precluded from recovering lost wages due to immigration status. Defendants2 here contend that an award of past and future wages to an undocumented alien worker expressly conflicts with federal immigration law and implicitly undermines the objectives that Congress sought to achieve when it adopted the nation's current immigration policies. Our analysis begins with the text and history of relevant federal immigration statutes, proceeds to the impact of the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.
...to an undocumented alien's recovery of lost United States earnings pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). See Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338, 812 N.Y.S.2d 416, 845 N.E.2d 1246 (2006).8 The court observed that the state legislature intended the Scaffold law to protect "all workers in qual......
-
Coma Corporation v. Kansas Department of Labor
...Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 98 S.Ct. 988, 55 L.Ed.2d 179, it argues "conflict preemption." See Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338, 356, 812 N.Y.S.2d 416, 845 N.E.2d 1246 (2006) (citing Preemption, however is not presumed: "[D]espite the variety of these opportunities for federal pree......
-
159 MP Corp. v. Redbridge Bedford, LLC
...in an immediate and practical way, to the enforcement of a particular statute or public policy" (Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC , 6 N.Y.3d 338, 364–365, 812 N.Y.S.2d 416, 845 N.E.2d 1246 [2006] ). "Rather, they are based on the sound premise that courts show insufficient respect for themselves ......
-
People ex rel. Spitzer v. Applied Card Sys.
...provision, (ii) implication, or (iii) an irreconcilable conflict between federal and state law (see Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338, 356, 812 N.Y.S.2d 416, 845 N.E.2d 1246 [2006]). When dealing with an express preemption provision, as we do here, it is unnecessary to consider the a......
-
The independent jurist: an analysis of judge Robert S. Smith's dissenting opinions.
...Labor Law [section] 240(1) is to compel ... owners to comply with the law, not to penalize them when they have done so."'). (17) Id. (18) 6 N.Y.3d 338, 845 N.E.2d 1246, 812 N.Y.S.2d 416 (2006). (19) Id. at 358, 845 N.E.2d at 1257, 812 N.Y.S.2d at 427. (20) Id. at 363, 845 N.E.2d at 1260, 81......
-
Is the New York State Court of Appeals still "friendless?" An empirical study of amicus curiae participation.
...Network LLC v. State of N.Y., 833 N.E.2d 1197 (N.Y. Courts (camera coverage of 2005 courtroom) 7 16 Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 845 N.E.2d 1246 (N.Y. Damages (claim by 2006 undocumented alien) 7 17 Desiderio v. Ochs, 791 N.E.2d 941 (N.Y. 2003 Damages (jury award) 7 18 Immuno AG v. Moor- Jan......
-
CAFA settlement notice provision: optimal regulatory policy?
...by consumers against wireless service providers, alleging deceptive trade practices and breach of contract); Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 845 N.E.2d 1246, 1251 (N.Y. 2006) (explaining the intervention of New York's AG on behalf of an undocumented alien plaintiff seeking to recover lost earni......
-
Undocumented Workers and Lost Future Earnings
...L.Rev. 985 (2006). [14] Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Gustavo Tovar Guzman, 116 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App. 2003). [15] Balbuena v. IDR Realty, LLC, 845 N.E.2d 1246 (N.Y. 2006) (holding that an undocumented worker can sustain a claim for lost future earnings when the defendants made no showing that the pla......