From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Footman v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 2023
215 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

66 Index No. 156910/21 Case No. 2022–00657

04-18-2023

Eric FOOTMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORP., Defendant–Respondent, Sunset Park General Contractors, LLC, Defendant.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (Jack L. Newhouse of counsel), for appellant. Abrams Fensterman, LLP, Brooklyn (Adam M. Birnbaum of counsel), for respondent.


Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (Jack L. Newhouse of counsel), for appellant.

Abrams Fensterman, LLP, Brooklyn (Adam M. Birnbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Kapnick, J.P., Moulton, Kennedy, Mendez, Pitt–Burke, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence Love, J.), entered on or about January 10, 2022, which granted defendant D'Onofrio General Contractors Corp.’s (D'Onofrio) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, with costs, and the complaint reinstated as against D'Onofrio.

In this action to recover payment of prevailing wages, D'Onofrio’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it should have been denied. An employment relationship is not required in order to pursue a third-party beneficiary claim for prevailing wages (see Wroble v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng'g of N.Y., P.C., 166 A.D.3d 520, 88 N.Y.S.3d 21 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Indeed, "a subcontractor's employees have ... a third-party right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor" ( Wroble, 166 A.D.3d at 521, 88 N.Y.S.3d 21 ). This principle directly applies here, in which a worker (plaintiff and the putative class members) employed by a subcontractor (defendant Sunset Park General Contractors, LLC) may pursue claims for prevailing wages against the general contractor (D'Onofrio) as the signatory to prevailing wage contracts (see id. ). The affidavits submitted by D'Onofrio confirm that Sunset contracted with D'Onofrio and was thus D'Onofrio’s subcontractor on certain projects.

Plaintiff has also alleged sufficient facts to support alter ego and/or joint employer theories of liability at this early stage of the litigation (see Matter of Zurita v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 175 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 109 N.Y.S.3d 275 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Baby Phat Holding Co., LLC v. Kellwood Co., 123 A.D.3d 405, 407, 997 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept. 2014] ). In any event, joint employer and alter ego allegations in the complaint were secondary, and largely immaterial to the breach of contract claim against D'Onofrio.


Summaries of

Footman v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 2023
215 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Footman v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Eric Footman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D'Onofrio General Contractors Corp.…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 18, 2023

Citations

215 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
186 N.Y.S.3d 208
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1956