From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MATTER OF J.E. ROZE ASSOC. v. DEPT. OF LABOR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1988
143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

September 27, 1988

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of the Commissioner of Labor that petitioner Apco willfully failed to pay its employee prevailing wages is supported by substantial evidence. A violation of Labor Law § 220 is willful when the contractor acted knowingly, intentionally or deliberately (Matter of Green Is. Constr. Co. v Roberts, 139 A.D.2d 907; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts], 128 A.D.2d 1006) and where it knew or should have known of the violation (Gross Plumbing Heating Co. v Department of Labor, 133 A.D.2d 524; Matter of Cam-Ful Indus. [Roberts], supra). There was testimony that Apco's president and principal shareholder, James E. Roze, knew the difference between a journeyman and an apprentice, but that Apco paid an employee as an apprentice when in fact he did the work of a journeyman. With respect to the charge that Apco willfully ignored the requirement that an apprentice be enrolled in a registered training program, there is evidence that such requirement was known to Apco's former co-owner, Jack Valder, and its present superintendent, Mark Kjar. The acts and knowledge of those individuals may be imputed to Apco.


Summaries of

MATTER OF J.E. ROZE ASSOC. v. DEPT. OF LABOR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1988
143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

MATTER OF J.E. ROZE ASSOC. v. DEPT. OF LABOR

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of J.E. ROZE ASSOCIATES, INC., as Prime Contractor, and APCO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Matter of Scharf Plumbing v. Hartnett

Petitioner urges that the finding of a willful violation was not supported by substantial evidence and that…

Tap Electrical Contracting Service, Inc. v. Hartnett

Accordingly, section 220 is not in conflict with or preempted by Federal law. Finally, there is substantial…