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.
IN RE: Kuba Brown, as President of Local—A- B, etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. John C. Liu, etc., Respondent–Respondent. Service Employee International Union Local
BJ,
Amicus Curiae.
Office of the General Counsel, Service Employees International Union, New York (Andrew L. Strom of counsel), for amicus curiae.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2011, granting respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, which sought, inter alia, to direct respondent Comptroller to conduct an investigation of the wage complaints filed by certain members of Local 94, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly determined that the union members, the custodian-helpers, were not entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits protection under Labor Law article 9. Under the “indirect system” of custodial care, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) employs custodian-engineers in accordance with civil service regulations, who in turn may employ custodian-helpers (see generally Matter of Conlin v Aiello, 64 A.D.2d 921 [1978], affd 49 N.Y.2d 713 [1980] ). The terms of the custodian-engineers' employment are set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between their union and the DOE. Thus, since custodian-engineers are employees of the DOE, they are not “contractors,” and custodian-helpers are not their “building service employees,” as those terms are defined in Labor Law § 230 et seq.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 7585 94 94 94 32
Decided: May 08, 2012
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)