Ayuso v State of New York
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Employment wage-and-hour dispute involving security officers employed by City University of New York (CUNY) who alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court of Claims dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the pleading defective, and separately denied claimants' request for permission to file a late claim.
The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal order, denied defendants' motion to dismiss, and reinstated the claim, but affirmed the separate order denying leave to file a late claim.
The filed claim satisfied Court of Claims Act § 11(b) [requires a claim to state the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, and the items of damage or injuries claimed] because it gave detailed information for each claimant, including job positions, employment periods, pay rates, claimed Fair Labor Standards Act violations, damages, and timesheet charts. The appellate court also held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, each paycheck may create a separate claim accrual, so a single accrual date was not required. However, late-claim relief was properly denied because claimants did not comply with Court of Claims Act § 10(6) [requires that a proposed claim containing all section 11 information accompany a late-claim motion].
Background
The claimants were security officers employed by City University of New York (CUNY). They brought a 123-page claim in the Court of Claims alleging that they were not paid the full overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The claim listed each claimant's position, length of employment, pay rates, alleged overtime violations, and claimed damages, and included timesheet charts showing hours allegedly worked from March 2022 through January 2025. Claimants initially attempted service on the Attorney General, but that service was rejected as incomplete and unverified. A complete verified claim was later served on May 27, 2025.
Lower Court Decision
The Court of Claims dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, apparently concluding that the pleading did not adequately satisfy the Court of Claims Act and treating September 27, 2024 as the accrual date for the entire claim. The same court also denied claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the claim was sufficiently detailed under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) and should not have been dismissed. It explained that, for Fair Labor Standards Act claims, each paycheck can constitute a separate cause of action accruing on the next regular payday after the work period, so the claim did not need one single accrual date. The court further held that because valid service did not occur until May 27, 2025, the relevant six-month limitations period ran from November 27, 2024, and the Attorney General's rejection of the earlier incomplete and unverified service was effective. The dismissal was therefore reversed and the claim reinstated. But the denial of late-claim relief was affirmed because claimants failed to attach a proposed claim to their Court of Claims Act § 10(6) motion, as the statute expressly requires.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that a detailed wage-and-hour claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act can satisfy the jurisdictional pleading requirements of the Court of Claims even when multiple accrual dates are involved. It also confirms that in overtime cases, accrual may occur paycheck by paycheck rather than on a single date. At the same time, the ruling underscores strict compliance with procedural requirements for late-claim motions, especially the obligation to attach a proposed claim under Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
A sufficiently detailed overtime claim in the Court of Claims will not be dismissed simply because it lacks one single accrual date when each paycheck can create a separate Fair Labor Standards Act claim, but parties seeking late-claim relief must strictly comply with the statutory requirement to attach a proposed claim.