The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >In the Matter of James V. Hart v. Elizabeth Holtzman, as Comptroller of the City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

In the Matter of James V. Hart v. Elizabeth Holtzman, as Comptroller of the City of New York

4 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered Decembe...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered Decembe...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered December 2, 1993, which dismissed the within CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul a determination of the Comptroller of the City of New York ("the Comptroller”), dated February 11, 1993, holding that rehabilitation and construction work being performed on the site of the former Greenpoint Hospital ("the Greenpoint projects”) did not constitute "public works” within the meaning of New York State Labor Law § 220, and that the workers in the projects therefore need not be paid the prevailing rate of wages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that the determination of the Comptroller had a rational basis relying upon two Opinion *176Letters issued by the Corporation Counsel, that the Green-point projects, which were publicly-financed, but privately-owned and constructed, housing for low-income tenants and homeless families and individuals, did not constitute "public works” subject to the prevailing wage rate under Labor Law §220, and that the Comptroller’s determination was neither arbitrary or capricious nor affected by an error of law (Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222, 231).

Although Labor Law § 220 does not define the statutory term "public works”, a substantial body of case law has held that the test for application of the prevailing wage requirement of section 220 is the direct or primary objective, purpose or function of the contract’s work product (Matter of National R. R. Passenger Corp. v Hartnett, 169 AD2d 127, 130).

The fact that the public benefitted incidentally from the projects did not convert the construction into a "public works” contract, where, as here, the primary purpose for the construction was to benefit private developers, who retained both the ownership and the construction risk, since "[significant partial and even complete governmental funding of an improvement is insufficient to convert a private project into a public works” (supra, at 132). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap