self-interest or arbitrariness by private parties is greatly
reduced. See In the Matter of General Electric Co. v. New York
State Dept. of Labor, 154 App. Div.2d 117, 551 N.Y.S.2d 966 (3rd
Dept. 1990) (finding similarly).
Plaintiff's intimation that Section 220's definition of
"locality" is unconstitutionally vague is similarly flawed.
Although the statute defines each locality by reference to the
geographic jurisdiction of the relevant CBA, Section 220(3)
expressly requires the Department to issue a schedule to the
contracting agency indicating the wages applicable to the
locality of the project prior to bidding. N.Y.Labor.Law §
220(3). Thus, all bidders are on notice as to the geographic
boundaries of the locality in question. The locality provision
is undoubtedly "clear enough to afford one a reasonable
opportunity to know what is permitted and what is proscribed,"
Textile Workers Pension v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.,
725 F.2d 843, 855 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing Grayned v. City of
Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d
222 (1972)), and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague,
particularly in light of the less stringent vagueness standard
applicable in the context of economic regulation. Village of
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193-94, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982);
Textile Workers Pension v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co., supra,
725 F.2d at 855-56.
Plaintiff's assertion that Section 220 is preempted by the
NLRA was rejected definitively by the Court of Appeals. 891
F.2d at 27-28. Plaintiff presents no additional information
that would justify revisiting this issue here.*fn8
The Supreme Court's determination in Pennhurst State School &
Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d
67 (1984), makes clear that a federal court may not award
injunctive relief against state officials on the basis of state
law. Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal
court from granting prospective injunctive relief against state
officials on the basis of federal claims, see, e.g., Edelman v.
Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1357, 39 L.Ed.2d 662
(1974); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed.
714 (1908), such relief is not available when based on state
law. Pennhurst, supra, 465 U.S. at 105, 104 S.Ct. at 910
("Our decisions repeatedly have emphasized that the Young
doctrine rests on the need to promote the vindication of
federal rights") (emphasis added). Injunctive relief is
unavailable on the state causes of action and the court is
without jurisdiction over these claims.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. As
plaintiff raises no genuine issues of material fact as to
counts one, three, four and five of the complaint, defendants'
motion for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.