From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 23, 1986
120 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 23, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Donovan, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: In conducting a compliance investigation and hearing pursuant to Labor Law § 220 (7), (8), the fiscal officer is authorized to issue subpoenas compelling production of an employer's books and records pertaining to the rate of wages paid and supplements provided to laborers on a public work project. Such investigative subpoenas should be upheld "so long as the information sought is reasonably related to a proper area of investigation." (Big Apple Concrete Corp. v Abrams, 103 A.D.2d 609, 614.) Here, the subpoenaed payroll records are reasonably related to the Department of Labor's investigation as to whether petitioner complied with the prevailing wage and supplements requirements (Labor Law § 220, [5] [b]) on its Interstate 81 construction contract with the State Department of Transportation. The information sought by respondent is relevant and material to establish whether petitioner made pension plan contributions in a manner and amount required by the contract and to what extent the funds currently on deposit in the "Hull Corporation Retirement Income Plan" constitute contributions on behalf of its public work employees. The record established that the wage supplements on behalf of all employees of Hull-Hazard and the Hull Corporation have been commingled; thus the mere fact that the total contribution exceeds the pension contributions required for employees on the Interstate 81 project does not establish that petitioner has satisfied its Labor Law obligations. The subpoenaed records are necessary to resolution of that issue. We note that an appeal lies as of right from an order quashing a subpoena (CPLR 5701 [a]), and that the subpoena was properly directed to the Hull Corporation since the pension plans of the two corporations are affiliated.


Summaries of

Matter of Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 23, 1986
120 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HULL-HAZARD, INC., et al., Respondents, v. LILLIAN…

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

Date published: May 23, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

In re Moveway Transfer Storage v. Thompson

Moreover, the investigatory powers of the Comptroller include the right to issue subpoenas compelling the…

Sierra Telcom v. Hartnett

Nor can we conclude that the AHO's refusal to issue the subpoena duces tecum requested by petitioners…