← Cases

Rothenberg v. Lowey

94 A.D.2d 651 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1983-05-12 English

Decision Majority · Concurring — Bloom, J.,

Contents

Majority

p. 651
Arthur Rothenberg, Respondent, v David Lowey et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), entered on February 5, 1982 unanimoüsly affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Carro, J. P., Fein, Lynch and Kassal, JJ.

concurs in a memorandum as follows: While I am in agreement with the conclusion reached at Special Term, I am constrained to point out that since the subject of the suit is “wages” rather than “wage supplements” the governing section of the Labor Law is section 198-a and not section 198-c. Although both sections are penal in nature, the law is plain that the statute gives rise to a right of civil action in addition to a right to proceed criminally (cf. Sasso v Millbrook Enterprises, 108 Misc 2d 562 ; Goldstein v Mangana, 99

Concurrence

p. 652
Misc 2d 523 ; Courtney v Brooklyn & Queens Allied Oil Burner Corp., 112 Misc 2d 89 ). By its terms-section 198-a imposes liability not only on the corporation but upon “the officers and agents of [the] corporation who knowingly- permit the corporation to violate this chapter by failing to pay the wages of any of its employees”. Accordingly, the result reached at Special Term was correct.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited