§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Colleen C. Gardner,, Respondent.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

    94 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a project is not publicly financed when "[t]he public involvement concerns only the creation of the economic conditions and incentives which will encourage and foster this type of private development"

  2. Matter of Cerie County Indus. Development v. Roberts

    63 N.Y.2d 810 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued September 11, 1984 Decided October 9, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Norman E. Joslin, J. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( John Q. Driscoll, Peter H. Schiff and Peter B. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. James L. Magavern, Susan C. Goldberg, Marianne E. Hanley and Francis W. Gruene for respondents. Frank S. Kedzielawa for intervenor-respondent, precluded. Robert H. Basso for Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and

  3. New York Charter School Ass'n v. Smith

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7375 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Matter of New York Charter School Association v. Smith, 15 N.Y.3d 403, 914 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2010], the court held that charter schools are not “public entities” as defined in Labor Law § 220 subject to the prevailing wage rate requirements under Article I, § 17 of the State Constitution.

  4. Pyramid Co. v. Labor Dept

    223 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 11 times
    In Matter of Pyramid Co. of Onondaga v New York State Dept. of Labor (223 AD2d 285 [1996]), the most commonly cited example of this disjunction, a highway ramp constructed by a private party pursuant to a state Department of Transportation permit was found to be a public work (id. at 287), but the Appellate Division was constrained to deem it immune from § 220's prevailing wage requirement because, notwithstanding the state permit and the contemplated state ownership of the ramp once completed, the State had not itself contracted for the improvement (id. at 288).

  5. Sierra Telcom v. Hartnett

    174 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 15 times

    January 30, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. Couch, White, Brenner, Howard Feigenbaum (Leslie F. Couch of counsel), for Sierra Telcom Services, Inc., petitioner. Gibson, Dunn Crutcher (Jonathan L. Sulds of counsel), for Ericsson Business Communications, Inc., petitioner. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (M. Patricia Smith and Jane Lauer Barker of counsel), for respondents. LEVINE, J. In May 1988, petitioner in proceeding No. 2, Ericsson Business Communications

  6. National Railroad Corp. v. Hartnett

    169 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a railroad construction project was not a public work project even though the construction was partially funded by the state because "Amtrak, a private corporation, retains ownership of the lines to be installed in the project"

  7. In re Chesterfield A. v. New York State Labor

    3 A.D.3d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    2002-07970. Decided January 12, 2004. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Labor Law § 220(8) to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor dated July 29, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) found that the petitioner failed to pay the prevailing wages and supplements on five public works projects, (2) found that the petitioner's failure to pay the prevailing wages was willful, (3) ordered the petitioner to pay the principal sums of $50,449

  8. Matter of Naftilos Painting v. Hartnett

    173 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 10 times

    May 9, 1991 Mahoney, P.J. These two related proceedings, in which petitioners seek review of respondent's determinations that petitioners willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to workers on Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) bridge projects, were originally remitted to respondent by this court for clarification of the methodology and calculations utilized in deciding the actual amounts underpaid the workers on the projects at issue ( 167 A.D.2d 700). Pursuant to our

  9. Matter of Stephens and Rankin v. Hartnett

    160 A.D.2d 1201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    April 26, 1990 Levine, J. In April 1986, petitioner entered into a contract with the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (hereinafter NFBC) for replacement of the asphalt overlay on the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge over the Niagara River. This bridge connects the United States and Canada and is owned and operated by the NFBC pursuant to a Joint Resolution of Congress (see, Pub L 75-490, 52 US Stat 767). The contract specified that petitioner was required to pay at least the prevailing rates of wages to

  10. Taj Airconditioning & Refrigerator Co. v. Goldin

    158 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

    February 13, 1990 Petitioner entered into a public works contract with the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to install air conditioning, sprinklers, and provide other duct work at Woodhull Hospital. The contract required petitioner and its subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wage and supplemental benefits to its workers on this project, as set forth in the applicable wage-rate schedules furnished petitioner. After petitioner subcontracted a part of its work to Favorite Sheet