 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PESHA COMMISSIONER COMPLAINT LIMITATIONS EMPLOYEE CPLR LABOR FILING LAW WORKERS DISCRIMINATION COURT HARTNETT DISMISS LIABILITY OSHA NY2D APPELLATE VIOLATION TIME PERIOD FILING REQUIREMENT DEFENDANT YORK PUBLICATION SUSPENSION REGULATIONS SAFETY SUPREME COURT GRIEVANCE-ARBITRATION |
THOMAS F. HARTNETT, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR &C., APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK CITY
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.
86 N.Y.2d 438, 657 N.E.2d 773, 633 N.Y.S.2d 758
October 26, 1995
2 No. 204A (1995 NY Int. 223)
2 No. 204B (1995 NY Int. 223)
Decided October 26, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 204A:
M. Patricia Smith, for Appellant.
Evelyn Jonas, for Respondent.
No. 204B:
M. Christina Norum, for Appellant.
Edward F. Zagajeski, for Respondent.
CIPARICK, J.:
These combined appeals present two issues: the appropriate Statute of
Limitations applicable to actions commenced under Labor Law § 27-a,
the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), and whether the
Commissioner of Labor is precluded from bringing a lawsuit under PESHA
where the complaining employee failed to file a complaint with the
Commissioner within the 30-day time period prescribed in Labor Law
27-a(10)(b). The action in Hartnett I should be dismissed as
time-barred since the three-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 214(2)
applies to PESHA actions. In Hartnett II, we hold that the 30-day
filing requirement is not a Statute of Limitations and may be waived
by the State Commissioner of Labor. Nonetheless, the Hartnett II
action should also be dismissed because it was not commenced within
the Limitations period of CPLR 214(2).
Hartnett I
According to the complaint, on March 31, 1987, defendant New York
City Transit Authority assigned four track workers to do outdoor work
under allegedly hazardous conditions. The workers, fearing for their
safety, refused to perform the work and requested reassignment to a
less dangerous worksite. The supervisor sent the track workers home.
They lost the day's pay and were suspended for three days as a result
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
