Summary
upholding Labor Commissioner's determination, after an administrative hearing, that employer violated N.Y. Lab. Law §191 by paying manual workers bi-weekly instead of weekly
Summary of this case from Mabe v. Wal-Mart Assocs.Opinion
July 7, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is vacated, on the law; and it is further,
Adjudged that that part of the determination which found that the petitioner violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) by failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages were earned is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
Since the petition raises a substantial evidence question, the Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division ( see, Matter of G G Shops v. New York City Loft Bd., 193 A.D.2d 405). Nonetheless, since the record is now before us, this Court will treat the proceeding as if it had been properly transferred here ( see, Matter of Duso v. Kralik, 216 A.D.2d 297; Matter of Reape v. Gunn, 154 A.D.2d 682).
We find that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record ( see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). The testimony of the petitioner's manager of Human Resources clearly established that the petitioner employed "manual workers" within the meaning of Labor Law § 190 (4) ( see generally, People v Interborough R. T. Co., 169 App. Div. 32), and that the petitioner violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) by paying wages to those employees pursuant to the petitioner's system-wide bi-weekly payroll scheme, rather than paying them weekly as required by the statute. The fact that those named employees also "assist customers when necessary" does not affect this conclusion, since the qualification "when necessary" indicates that assisting customers was not their principal function, and may be regarded as merely incidental to their principal employment ( see, Matter of Stryker, 158 N.Y. 526, 530-531).
We further find that the petitioner's payroll system was not in compliance or substantial compliance with the statute.
Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.