A. Uliano & Son. Ltd. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor

• Decision Date: 11 July 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05514,97 A.D.3d 664,949 N.Y.S.2d 84
• Parties: In the Matter of A. ULIANO & SON. LTD., et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

97 A.D.3d 664

949 N.Y.S.2d 84

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05514

In the Matter of A. ULIANO & SON. LTD., et al., petitioners,

v.NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 11, 2012.

Miller, Rosado & Algios, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Neil A. Miller and Louis Algios of counsel), for petitioners.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Kakalec, Seth Kupferberg, and Terri Gerstein of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Labor Law § 220(8) to review a determination of the New York State Department of Labor and Colleen Gardner, Commissioner of Labor, dated February 23, 2011, which adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law of a hearing officer also dated February 23, 2011, after a hearing, inter alia, finding that the petitioners willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to certain employees on a public work project and falsified payroll records, and directed the petitioners, among other things, to pay the principal sum of $825.96 to their employee John Bradley for underpayment of wages and supplemental benefits.

ADJUDGED that the petition is granted to the extent that the provision of the determination directing the petitioners to pay the principal sum of $825.96 to their employee John Bradley for underpayment of wages and supplemental benefits is annulled, the petition is otherwise denied, the determination is otherwise confirmed, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the respondentsfor the computation of the amount of the petitioners' underpayments to John Bradley in accordance herewith.

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence is taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence ( seeCPLR 7803[4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). “[A] determination is regarded as being supported by substantial evidence when the proof is so substantial that from it an inference of the existence of the fact found may be drawn reasonably” ( 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d at 179, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of an administrative body to whose expertise a subject matter has been entrusted, but rather to determine whether there is a reasonable fulcrum of support in the record to sustain the body's findings” (Matter of Furey v. County of Suffolk, 105 A.D.2d 41, 43–44, 482 N.Y.S.2d 788 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of R.I., Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 A.D.3d 1098, 1098–1099, 900 N.Y.S.2d 124).

While Labor Law § 220 “provides a specific process for calculating the ‘prevailing rate of wage’ ( seeLabor Law § 220[5][a] ), it does not require a specific procedure for the Commissioner [of Labor] to use in evaluating the appropriate trade or occupation to assign to particular work” (Matter of Lantry v. State of New York, 6 N.Y.3d 49, 55, 810 N.Y.S.2d 729, 844 N.E.2d 276). In the absence of such a statutory directive, a reviewing court “will uphold the Commissioner's methodology as long as it is not unreasonable” ( id. at 55, 810 N.Y.S.2d 729, 844 N.E.2d 276). Moreover, “trade classifications ‘are a matter given to the expertise of the Department [of Labor] and courts are strongly disinclined to disturb them, absent a clear showing that a classification does not reflect the nature of the work actually performed’ ” ( id., quoting Matter of General Elec. Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 154 A.D.2d 117, 120, 551 N.Y.S.2d 966,affd.76 N.Y.2d 946, 563 N.Y.S.2d 764, 565 N.E.2d 513 [some internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of R.I., Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 A.D.3d at 1099, 900 N.Y.S.2d 124).

Here, it was permissible for the respondents to determine that the petitioners' employees, including John Bradley, should have been classified as “laborers” for work on the subject public works project on certain days, and as “operators” for work on other days. However, the respondents failed to offer any explanation for adopting the daily classifications set forth in the audit that was prepared by an investigator from the respondent New York State Department of Labor (hereinafter the DOL). In classifying Bradley's work as that of an “operator” on certain days and that of a “laborer” on other days, the investigator ignored his own observation of Bradley's work, and selectively and indiscriminately used information from several union contribution forms ( cf. Matter of D.D.G. Gen. Contr. Corp. v. Hartnett, 149 A.D.2d 819, 820–821, 540 N.Y.S.2d 344). As Bradley's classification on each day was relevant to the calculation of the underpayment of the wages and supplemental benefits to which he was due, the respondents' determination that Bradley was underpaid in the principal sum of $825.96 for all of his work on the project was not supported by substantial evidence. This determination must, therefore, be annulled and the matter remitted to the respondents for a new determination of the daily classification of Bradley's work, and a reassessment thereafter of the amount of wages and supplemental benefits owed by the petitioners to Bradley.

However, the respondents' determination regarding the number of hours worked by each of the subject employees, including Bradley, was supported by substantial evidence. “When an employer fails to keep accurate records as required by statute, the Commissioner [of Labor] is permitted to calculate back wages due to employees by using the best available evidence and to shift the burden of negating the reasonableness of the Commissioner's calculations to the employer” (Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v. Hartnett, 156 A.D.2d 818, 821, 549 N.Y.S.2d 835;see Matter of Hy–Tech Coatings v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 226 A.D.2d 378, 379, 640 N.Y.S.2d 581;see also Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687–688, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515). As the enforcement provision of the prevailing wage statute is remedial in nature, and since its public purpose is to protect workers, the New York State Commissioner of Labor is entitled “to make just and reasonable inferences in awarding damages to employees even while the results may be approximate” (Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v. Hartnett, 156 A.D.2d at 820, 549 N.Y.S.2d 835;see Matter of Hy–Tech Coatings v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 226 A.D.2d at 379, 640 N.Y.S.2d 581;Matter of L & M Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 171 A.D.2d 795, 567 N.Y.S.2d 759). Nevertheless, “the approximation must at...