Case Name: In the Matter of Karl Geiger et al., Petitioners, v. New York State Department of Labor et al.,Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-09-22
Citations: 131 A.D.3d 887
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Karl Geiger et al., Petitioners, v New York State Department of Labor et al.,Respondents.
Judges: Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Karl Geiger et al., Petitioners, v New York State Department of Labor et al.,Respondents.
[16 NYS3d 722]

Opinion:
Determination of respondent New York State Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated January 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, among other things, affirmed respondent New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) orders insofar as they found that petitioners failed to pay an employee overtime wages, failed to furnish true and accurate payroll records, and failed to provide each employee with a complete wage statement with every payment of wages for a certain time period, and insofar as the orders imposed interest and civil penalties for the violations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, J.], entered May 9, 2014), dismissed, without costs.
IBA's determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of petitioners' employee and DOL's investigators concerning overtime that was not reflected in petitioners' payroll records (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). There is no basis to disturb IBA's credibility determinations (id.). Although the union contract provided that overtime was required to be authorized, petitioners' testimony indicated an awareness of the apparently unauthorized overtime, which IBA properly found was compensable to the employee (see Chao v Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F3d 280, 288-290 [2d Cir 2008]).
We have considered petitioners' other arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.