The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on July 23, 2026, in the case of Matter of Peckham Rd. Corp. v. Ulster County (CV-25-0612). The court upheld a local law that requires contractors to meet specific apprenticeship training requirements when bidding on certain public contracts. This decision affects contractors in Ulster County and emphasizes the importance of training programs in public construction projects.
The case arose when Peckham Road Corporation, a highway construction contractor, challenged Local Law No. 5-2023 enacted by the Ulster County Legislature. This law mandates that contractors bidding on high-value public works projects must participate in apprenticeship programs approved by the State Department of Labor. Additionally, contractors must demonstrate a minimum graduation rate of 30% and graduate at least three trade-specific apprentices over the past five years. The law aims to ensure that contractors provide a skilled workforce for public construction projects.
Peckham Road Corporation filed a bid protest after the county incorporated these apprenticeship requirements into a request for bids for a road resurfacing project. The company argued that the graduation requirements violated state law by imposing unauthorized conditions on the awarding of public contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. After the county refused to remove these requirements, Peckham Road Corporation initiated a combined proceeding under CPLR article 78 and a declaratory judgment action to challenge the legality of Local Law 5.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leading to the appeal by Peckham Road Corporation. The court ruled that Local Law 5 does not conflict with existing state laws governing public contracts. The judge, Ryba, stated, "Local Law 5 does not directly conflict with either General Municipal Law § 103 or Labor Law § 816-b." The court emphasized that the law establishes uniform qualifications for bidders, which are rationally related to the goal of ensuring a skilled workforce for public projects.
The court further explained that while General Municipal Law § 103 requires public contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, it does not prohibit municipalities from establishing reasonable qualifications for bidders. The court noted that the graduation requirements serve a legitimate public interest by ensuring that contractors have a proven track record of producing skilled workers.
Moreover, the court found that Local Law 5 does not violate Labor Law § 816-b, which allows governmental entities to require contractors to maintain registered apprenticeship agreements. The court concluded that Local Law 5 supplements rather than conflicts with state law, as it does not alter the criteria for Department of Labor registration and approval.
The ruling also addressed concerns about federal preemption, stating that Local Law 5 is not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) or the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court clarified that the local law does not impose requirements on apprenticeship programs beyond what is necessary for public contract bidding.
The Appellate Division's ruling affirms the importance of apprenticeship programs in public construction projects and allows Ulster County to enforce its law requiring contractors to demonstrate their commitment to workforce training. This decision is significant for contractors in the region, as it establishes the legal framework for how apprenticeship requirements can be integrated into public contract bidding.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage other municipalities to adopt similar apprenticeship requirements in their bidding processes. It underscores the value placed on workforce development and the need for skilled labor in the construction industry. The decision also sets a precedent for how local laws can coexist with state and federal regulations concerning public contracts and apprenticeship programs.
As for what’s next, it remains unclear if Peckham Road Corporation will seek to appeal the decision further. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.