8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sarco Industries v. Angellogreen2 sentences2016In determining the amount of the penalty, respondent must consider “the size of the employer’s business, the good faith of the employer, the gravity of the violation, the history of previous violations and the failure to comply with recordkeeping or other non-wage requirements” (Labor Law § 220 [8]; see Matter of Sarco Indus. v Angello, 23 AD3d at 717 ). 2010As a result, we cannot conclude that the penalty “was 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 Hull-Hazard, Inc. v Roberts, 136 AD2d 872, 874 [1988]; see also Matter of JMH, Inc. v New York State Liq. | 2 | 2 |
R.I., Inc. v. New York State Department of Laborgreen2 sentences2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). 2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). | 1 | 1 |
Scuderi v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). 2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v. Musolinogreen2 sentences2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). 2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2016J., dissenting], citing People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). 2016J., dissenting], citing People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Headygreen1 sentence2015Finally, the civil penalty of 25% of wages due was not “so disproportionate *1456 to the underlying offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Garcia v Heady, 46 AD3d at 1090 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), given the existence of a previous violation, the size of the employer and the gravity of the violation. | 1 | 1 |
Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2010As a result, we cannot conclude that the penalty “was 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 Hull-Hazard, Inc. v Roberts, 136 AD2d 872, 874 [1988]; see also Matter of JMH, Inc. v New York State Liq. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. Martin
green
2 sentences2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). 2025Given the circumstances of this case, involving a contractor who was previously found to have willfully violated the prevailing wage law, continued to do so on several additional public construction contracts, and was found to have falsified payroll records, the 25% penalty imposed does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Scuderi v Gardner , 103 AD3d at 648; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor , 72 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; compare Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino , 136 AD3d at 1189-1190). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Altomerianos
green
1 sentence1994In Matter of Altomerianos ( 160 AD2d 96, 102 ), we held that: "We emphasize, again, that misappropriated funds used by an attorney for personal purposes makes the 'conversion’ much worse than if the funds are misappropriated for reasons the attorney honestly believes to be consistent with his obligations as a fiduciary, but, even so, absent a finding of venal intent, the particular use to which the misappropriated funds are put bears mainly on the gravity of the violation of DR 9-102 (A) and not to whether there has been a violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Stolz v. Board of Regents of the University
green
1 sentence1988This court’s scope of review where a penalty is imposed by an agency after an adjudicatory hearing is limited to determining whether the penalty is “ 'so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233, quoting Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 364 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Pell v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1988This court’s scope of review where a penalty is imposed by an agency after an adjudicatory hearing is limited to determining whether the penalty is “ 'so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233, quoting Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 364 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Alex
green
1 sentence1962As stated in a similar ease (People v. Alex, 260 N. Y. 425, 428-429 ): < i The Trial Judge charged that the jury could consider the written confession only in the event that they found that it was not made under the influence of fear produced by threats. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.