Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
George BOLOVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. POLIS CONTRACTING CORP., etc, et al., Respondents, For Violation of New York State Labor Law 220 et seq. Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent-Respondent.
Petition, filed in this Court pursuant to Labor Law § 220(8), to annul an Order and Determination of the New York City Comptroller, dated April 21, 1995, which denied petitioner's prevailing wage complaint, unanimously dismissed, as time-barred, without costs.
The April 24, 1995 notice from the Comptroller's office advising petitioner of the issuance of an Order and Determination on his prevailing wage complaint misadvised him that he had 30 days from his receipt of such Order and Determination to seek review in the Appellate Division when, in fact, he had “thirty days from the notice of the filing of said order in the office of the [Comptroller]” (Labor Law § 220[8] ). We give petitioner the benefit of this misadvice by assuming that the 30-day period began to run on June 5, 1995, when he concededly received the Order and Determination, but even then, the petition, which was not filed until May 16, 1996, was late. This Court's order of July 13, 1995, which purported to extend petitioner's time to “perfect the proceeding”, does not assist petitioner since the Statute of Limitations had already expired and CPLR 201 prohibits any court from extending the time limited by law for the commencement of an action. We would add that the contractors allegedly responsible for payment of petitioner's wages are necessary parties whose absence also renders the proceeding dismissable (CPLR 1001[a] ).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 23, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)