A New York court recently ruled in favor of a group of security officers employed by the City University of New York (CUNY), allowing their claims for unpaid overtime to proceed. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on May 19, 2026, that the officers could pursue their allegations against the state for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This decision affects the claimants directly and raises important issues regarding labor rights and wage disputes in New York.

The case, known as Ayuso v. State of New York, was filed under Claim No. 143421 and Appeal No. 6655-6656. It centers on the claimants' assertion that they were not compensated fully for overtime hours worked. The court's decision is significant not only for the claimants but also for other workers in similar situations who may face challenges in asserting their rights to fair pay.

The claimants in this case are security officers who worked for CUNY. They alleged that the university failed to pay them the overtime compensation they were owed under the FLSA. The dispute arose when the New York Court of Claims dismissed their claim, stating it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The claimants argued that their detailed documentation and evidence warranted a review of their claims.

The case made its way to the Appellate Division after the Court of Claims ruled against the claimants on October 6, 2025. The claimants contended that their claim met the necessary legal requirements, including providing specific details about their employment, the nature of the alleged violations, and the damages they sought. They also submitted timesheet charts that outlined the hours worked over a specified period.

In its ruling, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, stating, "The Court of Claims should have allowed claimants' claim to proceed, as it satisfied the substantive pleading requirements of the Court of Claims Act." The judges emphasized that the claimants had adequately detailed their positions, pay rates, and the types of FLSA violations they were claiming. The court found that the claim did not need to specify a single accrual date, as each paycheck could represent a separate violation under the FLSA.

The ruling also clarified that the claimants' failure to serve the complete and verified claim on the Attorney General until May 27, 2025, did not invalidate their claims. The court noted that the Attorney General's notice rejecting the initial service of the claim was effective because it indicated that the claim was incomplete. The judges highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases.

However, the court upheld the lower court's decision regarding the claimants' request to file a late claim. The judges noted that the claimants did not attach the proposed claim to their late claim motion, which is a requirement under the Court of Claims Act. This aspect of the ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to follow procedural rules closely when seeking to file claims.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case. It reinforces the rights of workers to seek compensation for unpaid overtime and clarifies the legal standards that govern such claims. The decision may encourage other workers who believe they have been denied fair pay to pursue their claims, knowing that the courts may be receptive to their arguments.

Additionally, the ruling could influence how employers handle overtime compensation and the documentation required to defend against claims. Employers may need to ensure that their payroll practices comply with the FLSA and that they maintain accurate records of hours worked to avoid similar disputes.

Looking ahead, the claimants in Ayuso v. State of New York can continue to pursue their claims in the Court of Claims. The court's decision to reinstate their claims opens the door for further legal proceedings, where they can present their evidence and seek the compensation they believe they are owed. However, details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.