| Wysocki v Kel-Tech Constr. Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09527 [46 AD3d 251] |
| December 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Janusz Wysocki et al., Respondents, v Kel-TechConstruction Inc. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-PartyAction.) |
—[*1] Barnes, Iaccarino, Virginia, Ambinder & Shepherd, PLLC, New York (Dennis Cariello ofcounsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 19, 2005,which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' contractors' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing plaintiff construction workers' causes of action for breach of contract,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Assuming, as plaintiffs allege, that the public works contracts at issue, which none of theparties submitted to the motion court, incorporate the requirements of Labor Law § 220and a schedule of prevailing wages, plaintiffs' common-law breach of contract causes of action,asserting third-party beneficiary status, would not be preempted by section 301 of the LaborManagement Relations Act of 1947 (61 US Stat 156, codified at 29 USC § 185) since therights so conferred would be independent of the collective bargaining agreement (see Livadasv Bradshaw, 512 US 107, 123-124 [1994]). Labor Law § 220 applies alike to unionand nonunion members working on public works projects and its requirements arenonnegotiable. While collective bargaining agreements are helpful on the issue of prevailingwage rates (see Lingle v Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 US 399, 413 n 12 [1988]),they are not necessarily determinative, and do not bear on every issue presented under Labor Law§ 220. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and Buckley, JJ.