Legal Opinion

Action Electrical Contractors Co. v. Goldin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 27, 1984PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Chief Judge Cooke.

This appeal is concerned with a contractor’s obligation to provide “supplements,” or fringe benefits, to employees engaged in public works projects. Under subdivision 3 of section 220 of the Labor Law, supplemental fringe benefits must be provided to such employees “in accordance with the prevailing practices in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state” where the public work is located. This requirement will be fulfilled when employees are supplied with the cash equivalent of the cost of obtaining the prevailing benefits or by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kurcsics v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Trump-Equitable Fifth Avenue Co. v. GliedmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n v. BeekmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1981

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Brian Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato-Meridian Central School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Moriarty v. Planning Board of Village of SloatsburgAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  3. Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of LaborNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of ParishAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API