Opinion
February 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
The application was properly denied, respondent's inadvertent default notwithstanding, on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (Matter of Plummer v. Klepak, 48 N.Y.2d 486). That this was the inexcusable fault of his union does not alter the situation.
Petitioner's argument that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply because the agreement does not cover out-of-title work (Matter of Dombroski v. Bloom, 170 A.D.2d 805), is belied by the agreement itself. Petitioner argues that even if the agreement does cover out-of-title work he also has a right to payment under Labor Law § 220, but we reject his analogy to the exception to the exhaustion doctrine enjoyed by seamen and based on reasons unique to the maritime industry (see, Lamont v. United States, 613 F. Supp. 588).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.