N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Labor / ARTICLE Public Work
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 223 (2026)

Enforcement of article

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 223. Enforcement of article. If the fiscal officer as defined herein
finds that any person contracting with the state, a municipal
corporation, or any commission appointed pursuant to law, for the
performance of any public work fails to comply with or evades the
provisions of this article, he shall present evidence of such
non-compliance or evasion to the officer, department, board or
commission having charge of such work for enforcement.  Wherein such
evidence indicates a non-compliance or evasion on the part of a
sub-contractor, the contractor shall be responsible for such
non-compliance or evasion. It shall be the duty of any officer,
department, board or commission in charge of the construction of such
public work contracts to enforce the provisions of this article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Worth & Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 857 A.2d 727 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Worth & Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 857 A.2d 727 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “" N.Y. Labor Law § 223 (Consol. 2004). This statutory language is substantially different from that of the Act which places no such responsibility on Worth, the general contractor.”
Edward Joy Co. v. Hudacs, 199 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Respondent sought to hold petitioner vicariously liable for Aarmco’s alleged underpayments pursuant to Labor Law § 223. Petitioner then commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the…”
Siera Telcom Servs., Inc. v. Hartnett, 30 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “Ericsson, as prime contractor, was found to be financially responsible for the underpayments, interest and the 10% civil penalty assessed against Sierra (see, Labor Law § 223). Respondent Commissioner of Labor essentially adopted the AHO’s report and recommendations and…”
Glenman Indus. & Com. Contracting Corp. v. New York State Off. of State Comptroller, 75 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “As a result, respondent Office of the State Comptroller (hereinafter OSC) withheld payments due to petitioner (the general contractor) in excess of $1,329,000 pending final determination of the investigations of the two subcontractors (see Labor Law § 223 [general contractor…”
Beltrone Constr. Co v. McGowan, 260 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). “Following a hearing, it was determined that Northeastern had willfully underpaid said employees and that petitioner was responsible for such underpayments pursuant to Labor Law § 223. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging respondent’s determination on the…”
Unicorn Developers, Ltd. v. Comm'r of Labor, 190 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Notably, Labor Law § 223 makes a prime contractor responsible for its subcontractor’s failure to make proper wage and wage supplement payments.”
Moss Elec. Air Conditioning Corp. v. Goldin, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). “” (CPLR 7803 [4]; see also, Labor Law § 223.) Although Special Term did not order such a transfer, this court "is empowered to dispose of all issues in the proceeding as if the matter had been properly transferred in the first instance.”
Konski Engineers v. Comm'r, 229 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “As the prime contractor, petitioner is responsible for Nor sea Corporation’s failure to make proper wage and supplement payments (see, Labor Law § 223; Unicorn Developers v Commissioner of Labor of State of N.”
City Constr. Dev., Inc. v. Hartnett, 192 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · cites it 2× “We find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that Labor Law § 223 denies it equal protection under the law, since the statute treats all prime contractors equally (see, Labor Law § 223; Matter of Abrams v Bronstein, 33 NY2d 488, 492 ).”
Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 914 F. Supp. 931 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). “This court disagrees with defendants’ principal assertion that because plaintiff would not be making a payment to a union-sponsored ERISA plan, but rather a lump-sum payment directly to workers pursuant to Labor Law § 223, ERISA does not preempt. *936 Defendants argue that Labor…”
Taj Airconditioning & Refrigerator Co. v. Goldin, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1111 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “Moreover, petitioner’s claimed lack of knowledge of the subcontractor’s unlawful practices does not prevent it from being held responsible and liable for such noncompliance (Labor Law § 223; Matter of Canarsie Plumbing & Heating Corp.”
Finkel v. Structure Tone, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2025). “The Court reasoned that the state’s action was not an “alternative enforcement mechanism” of ERISA Section 502(a) because the defendant’s obligation did “not arise under ERISA or a collective bargaining agreement providing for ERISA benefits, but directly under Labor Law § 223,”…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.