{"id":712,"date":"2025-02-06T12:39:08","date_gmt":"2025-02-06T16:39:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=712"},"modified":"2025-02-06T12:39:09","modified_gmt":"2025-02-06T16:39:09","slug":"appellate-court-affirms-that-flagging-work-qualifies-for-prevailing-wage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2025\/02\/06\/appellate-court-affirms-that-flagging-work-qualifies-for-prevailing-wage\/","title":{"rendered":"Appellate Court Affirms That Flagging Work Qualifies for Prevailing Wage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The New York Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in Santana v. San Mateo Construction Corp.<\/a><\/em>, entered on January 16, 2025, reinforces the enforceability of prevailing wage claims under Administrative Code of City of N.Y.\u00a0 \u00a7 19-142. The court clarified that section 19-142 applies to any permit issued “to use or open a street,” not just public works projects. It reaffirmed that flagging work qualifies for prevailing wages, and that laborers can enforce agreements related to this provision as third-party beneficiaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

San Mateo Construction Corp.’s flagging contracts obligated compliance with all laws, making putative class members third-party beneficiaries despite contractual disclaimers, which the court deemed void as against public policy. The ruling also affirmed that prevailing wage rights under Administrative Code \u00a7 19-142 extend to private projects, rejecting the contractual forfeiture of such rights as contrary to public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jose A. Aquino<\/a>\u00a0(@JoseAquinoEsq<\/a> on X) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group<\/a> and of the Cuba Business Group<\/a>.\u00a0 Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on construction law, lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author\u2019s law firm or its individual attorneys.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New York Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in Santana v. San Mateo Construction Corp., entered on January 16, 2025, reinforces the enforceability of prevailing wage claims under Administrative Code of City of N.Y.\u00a0 \u00a7 19-142. The court clarified that section 19-142 applies to any permit issued “to use or open a street,” not just … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Appellate Court Affirms That Flagging Work Qualifies for Prevailing Wage”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":321,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[88,826,593,518],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-construction-law","tag-flagging-work","tag-jose-a-aquino","tag-prevailing-wages"],"authors":[{"term_id":699,"user_id":66,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jaaquino","display_name":"Jose A. Aquino","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2014\/07\/aquinojose-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/712\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=712"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}