Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing Corporation
2004 NY Slip Op 09716 (N.Y. App. Div. December 28, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55833
Description
Undocumented Laborer’s Tort Recovery for Lost Earnings Is Limited to Wages Plaintiff Could Have Earned in His Home Country
Abstract
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, vacated the trial
court’s award of lost earnings to an undocumented worker and
remanded for trial on past and future lost earnings measured by the
prevailing wage in plaintiff’s country of origin. Plaintiff
sued in tort for injuries from a fall while working on a
construction project. The trial court awarded him damages for pain
and suffering as well as lost earnings measured by U.S. wages.
Defendants—work-site owner and contractor—appealed. The
appellate court affirmed the award for pain and suffering but
found, pursuant to the supremacy clause, that the Immigration
Reform and Control Act and the decision in Hoffman Plastic
Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (Clearinghouse No.
54,508), preempted state tort law to the extent that state law
permitted recovery of wages that plaintiff would have earned
illegally in the United States. Addressing the dissent in a
companion case, Balbuena v. IDR Realty, 2004 N.Y. slip op.
09693 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 28, 2004)(Clearinghouse No. 55,812), the
court found that the potential limitation of one item of
damages--lost earnings--in future tort actions would not create an
incentive for employers to hire undocumented workers. The appellate
court found that an award of damages based on the prevailing wage
in plaintiff’s home country did not offend federal policy.
