§Why CasetextPricing

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, District Council No. 4,, et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of Labor, et al., Appellants.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. Samiento v. World Yacht Inc.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1258 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 280 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim because such an action does not lie where the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law

  2. Sanders v. Winship

    57 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that all parts of the statute should be harmonized and given its full effect and meaning if possible

  3. GE CAPITAL v. TAX APPEALS DIV

    2 N.Y.3d 249 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 86 times
    Observing that because “[t]hird-party finance companies do not carry the burden of collecting sales taxes as a trustee of the State,” it was not arbitrary or capricious for Tax Commission to preclude third parties from pursuing refund claims pertaining to uncollectible debts

  4. Lantry v. State

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9573 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 68 times
    In Lantry v. State of New York, 6 NY3d 49 (2005), the Court of Appeals outlined the procedure whereby the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor sets the prevailing rate for workers on State and local public works projects (except in New York City, where it is the responsibility of the Comptroller).

  5. James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3935 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In James Sq., the Court concluded that a retroactive period of 16 months “should be considered excessive and weighs against the State” (21 N.Y.3d at 249, 970 N.Y.S.2d 888, 993 N.E.2d 374).

  6. Barenboim v. S, V. Starbucks Corp.

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4754 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the New York State Department of Labor's interpretation of the NYLL is entitled to deference

  7. Chesterfield v. Labor Dept

    4 N.Y.3d 597 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 48 times

    64. Argued March 30, 2005. Decided May 3, 2005. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered January 12, 2004, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The Appellate Division (1) confirmed a determination of the Commissioner of Labor which had (a) found that petitioner failed to pay the prevailing wages and supplements on five public works projects, (b) found that petitioner's failure to

  8. Long v. Adirondack Park

    76 N.Y.2d 416 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 69 times
    Rejecting a construction based on the rule of the last antecedent because it ran contrary to the purpose, intent, and overall structure of the statute

  9. De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4842 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Noting that a “proper analysis” of a statute's meaning includes review of “precedent”

  10. Matter of Brown v. Wing

    93 N.Y.2d 517 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 25 times

    Argued May 4, 1999 Decided June 3, 1999 Alicia R. Ouellette, for appellant. Steven H. Stern, for individual respondent. BELLACOSA, J.: The common issue in these three jointly considered cases is whether Medicaid ineligibility periods must be fixed as of the first day of the month in which an improper asset transfer takes place, or whether, at the State's option, they may be set as of the first day of the month after the transfer occurred. The Department of Social Services used the latter eligibility

  11. Section 601.8 - Program probation, monitoring, re-certification and performance

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 601.8   Cited 6 times

    (a) During any 12 month period, every active program must have at least one registered apprentice. (b) Program probation. (1) Newly approved programs shall undergo a two year probation beginning on the first apprentice's start date or the program approval date, whichever comes later. Sponsors of newly approved programs shall be advised that their programs are being approved contingent upon successful completion of probation. During probation, a sponsor may not submit any new program applications

  12. Section 601.1 - Purpose of part

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 601.1   Cited 6 times

    This Part establishes procedures and standards for the approval and registration of apprenticeship programs and agreements in furtherance of the public policy of this State as enunciated in section 810 of the Labor Law to develop sound apprenticeship training standards and to encourage industry and labor to institute training programs. This Part is intended to ensure that apprenticeship programs developed and registered in accordance with public policy are of the highest possible quality in all aspects

  13. Section 601.3 - Definitions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 601.3   Cited 5 times

    As used in this Part: (a) Active program means a registered program that has: (1) passed probation; (2) met the standards for employment and training of apprentices; and (3) not been granted inactive status. (b) Apprentice means a person who is at least 16 years of age who has entered into a written agreement with a sponsor to provide for his or her participation in an approved program of training through employment and related and supplemental instruction. (c) Apprentice probation means the number