Opinion
February 2, 1996
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because this proceeding was instituted to vindicate a public interest, respondent was not required to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1) (see, Union Free School Dist. No. 6 v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 N.Y.2d 371, 379-380, rearg denied 36 N.Y.2d 807; Board of Educ. v. Board of Educ., 174 A.D.2d 704, 705). Respondent may on his own initiative cause a compliance investigation to be made (see, Labor Law § 220; Matter of Sierra Telecom Servs. v. Hartnett, 174 A.D.2d 279, 284, appeal dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 1039, cert denied 507 U.S. 972). The proceeding was timely commenced (see, Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). The requirement that an order or determination be made within six months from the date the compliance investigation is initiated (see, Labor Law § 220) is directory, not mandatory (see, Guercio v. Gerosa, 8 A.D.2d 250, 255, affd 8 N.Y.2d 1104) and the lapse of time in rendering an administrative determination, standing alone, does not constitute prejudice as a matter of law (see, Matter of Harris Assocs. v. deLeon, 84 N.Y.2d 698, 702; Matter of Corning Glass Works v. Ovsanik, 84 N.Y.2d 619, 623-624). The record does not support petitioner's contention that the employees on the project were classified and graded civil service employees. Thus, those employees are entitled to the prevailing wage rate (see, Matter of Tenalp Constr. Corp. v. Roberts, 141 A.D.2d 81, 85; cf., Matter of Buffalo Bldg. Trades Council v. Board of Educ., 36 N.Y.2d 782, 783). Finally, the record supports respondent's determination that the work involved was part of a public work project subject to the requirements of Labor Law § 220.