Opinion
February 5, 1996
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent agency's determination with respect to underpayments was supported by substantial evidence including the testimony of its investigator and the subject employees (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; Matter of L M Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 171 A.D.2d 795; Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v. Hartnett, 156 A.D.2d 818).
The petitioner's contention that the charges concerning the East Islip and Lindenhurst contracts should not have been joined in one hearing is not properly before us. The petitioner failed to raise this issue at the administrative hearing (see, Matter of Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391; Matter of International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Hartnett, 199 A.D.2d 1084; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1071). In any event, the consolidation of the cases was a proper exercise of the administrative agency's discretion (see, Matter of Reisner v Board of Regents, 142 A.D.2d 22, 30; Matter of Bayron v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 28 A.D.2d 993).
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Labor Law § 220-b [c], [d]; § 223; Ames Constr. Co. v. Dole, 727 F. Supp. 502, 508; Winzeler Excavating Co. v. Brock, 694 F. Supp. 362, 367; Matter of City Constr. Dev. v. Hartnett, 192 A.D.2d 651). Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.