Ramirez v. Comm'r of Labor, 110 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Ramirez v. Comm'r of Labor, 110 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Guallpa v. New York State Indus. Bd. of Appeals (nyappdiv, 2025-03-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Guallpa v. New York State Indus. Bd. of Appeals (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The petitioner's contention that the IBA should have credited the testimony she provided at the hearing was unavailing, since "when there is conflicting testimony and questions of credibility, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject the administrative agency's determination of credibility" ( Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. , 110 AD3d at 902 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tak Yuet Kong v. Commissioner of Labor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
The IBA properly weighed petitioners' timesheet evidence, which was intended to show their compliance with the record-keeping requirements of Labor Law § 661, and determined that the timesheets were insufficient to show compliance with the requirement that employers keep contemporaneous and accurate payroll records showing, for each week worked, the hours worked and the rates of pay ( see Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. , 110 AD3d 901, 901 [2d Dept 2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tak Yuet Kong v. Commissioner of Labor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
The IBA properly weighed petitioners' timesheet evidence, which was intended to show their compliance with the record-keeping requirements of Labor Law § 661, and determined that the timesheets were insufficient to show compliance with the requirement that employers keep contemporaneous and accurate payroll records showing, for each week worked, the hours worked and the rates of pay ( see Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. , 110 AD3d 901, 901 [2d Dept 2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v. Musolino (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, inasmuch as petitioner failed to produce any documentation of the time that Ernestine spent operating the forklift, respondent was “entitled to make just and reasonable inferences and use other evidence to establish the amount of underpaid wages, even though the results may be approximate” (Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y., 110 AD3d 901, 901 [2013]; see Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d 943, 944 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 714 [2011]; Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v Hartnett, 156 AD2d 818, 820 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Graham v. New Hampton Fire Dist.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Where room for choice in administrative fact-finding exists, a reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject a rational credibility determination made by the administrative decision maker (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987]; Matter of Wagner v Fiala, 113 AD3d at 695 ; Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y., 110 AD3d 901, 902 [2013]; Matter of Kandekore v Commissioner of Motor Vehs., 225 AD2d 774, 774-775 [1996]; Matter of Stowe Potato Sales v McGuire, 203 AD2d 755, 757 [1994]).
cited Cited "see" Matter of Afolayan v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Bd. of Appeals , 215 AD3d at 848 ; see Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. , 110 AD3d at 901 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Mannino v. State of New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
"That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating a penalty" ( id. ; see Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. , 110 AD3d at 902 ).
discussed Cited "see" MARCHIONDA, STEVEN v. INDUSTRIAL BD OF APPEALS OF STATE
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“In view of the petitioners’ failure to produce complete and accurate records, [respondent] was entitled to -2- 593 TP 13-02121 make just and reasonable inferences and use other evidence to establish” whether petitioners’ employees were permitted to work extra hours in order to make up time for any absences that were not attributed to accrued vacation time (Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d 943, 944 , lv denied 17 NY3d 714 ; see generally Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y., 110 AD3d 901, 901-902 ; Matter of Angello v National Fin.
discussed Cited "see" Marchionda v. Industrial Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“In view of the petitioners’ failure to produce complete and accurate records, [respondent] was entitled to make just and reasonable inferences and use other evidence to establish” whether petitioners’ employees were permitted to work extra hours in order to make up time for any absences that were not attributed to accrued vacation time (Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d 943, 944 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 714 [2011]; see generally Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y., 110 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2013]; Matter of Angello v National Fin.
discussed Cited "see" Marchionda v. Industrial Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“In view of the petitioners’ failure to produce complete and accurate records, [respondent] was entitled to make just and reasonable inferences and use other evidence to establish” whether petitioners’ employees were permitted to work extra hours in order to make up time for any absences that were not attributed to accrued vacation time (Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d 943, 944 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 714 [2011]; see generally Matter of Ramirez v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y., 110 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2013]; Matter of Angello v National Fin.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Guillermo M. Ramirez
v.
Commissioner of Labor of State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 16, 2013.
110 A.D.3d 901
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the State of New York Industrial Board of Appeals dated July 26, 2011, as, after a hearing, modified an order to comply issued by the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York dated October 7, 2009, finding that the petitioners underpaid employees in violation of Labor Law article 19 and imposing civil penalties, and directed the Commissioner of Labor to adjust the underpayments based on certain recalculations.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the amended petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

After a hearing, the State of New York Industrial Board of Appeals (hereinafter the IBA) issued a determination which, among other things, modified an order to comply issued by the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York (hereinafter the Commissioner), finding that the petitioners underpaid employees in violation of Labor Law article 19 and imposing civil penalties, and directed the Commissioner to adjust the underpayments based on certain recalculations. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the IBA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Aldeen v Industrial Appeals Bd., 82 AD3d 1220, 1221 [2011]).

The petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the method used to calculate the amount of underpayments was unreasonable (see Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]; 12 NYCRR 65.30). When a petitioner fails to produce complete and accurate records, the Department of Labor is entitled to make just and reasonable inferences and use other evidence to establish the amount of underpaid wages, even though the results may be approximate (see Matter of D & D Mason Contrs., Inc. v Smith, 81 AD3d at 944; Matter of Hy-Tech Coatings v New York State Dept. of Labor, [*902] 226 AD2d 378, 379 [1996]; Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v Hartnett, 156 AD2d 818, 820 [1989]). Here, the IBA’s finding that the petitioners’ employee time cards and weekly payroll sheets did not accurately reflect the hours actually worked by the subject employees was amply supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. The petitioners’ contention that the IBA should have credited the evidence which they produced at the hearing regarding the number of hours worked by each employee is unavailing, inasmuch as “ ‘when there is conflicting testimony and questions of credibility, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject the administrative agency’s determination of credibility’ ” (Matter of A. Uliano & Son. Ltd. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 97 AD3d 664, 667 [2012], quoting Matter of Saitanis Enters. v Hines, 201 AD2d 738, 738-739 [1994]).

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the civil penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Labor was within the limits set by Labor Law § 218 (1), and it was not “so disproportionate to the underlying offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Sarco Indus. v Angello, 23 AD3d 715, 717 [2005]; see Matter of Garcia v Heady, 46 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2007]). In imposing the civil penalty, the Commissioner gave due consideration to the relevant factors (see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner, 103 AD3d 645 [2013]; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.