Defense against Alleged Illegal Subcontracting

Our team examined the multi-layer subcontracting chain and clarified distinctions between primary contracting obligations and secondary delegations.

In New York, subcontracting is permissible when a contractor is aware of and approves the delegation, even if approval is expressed informally.

We reconstructed communication logs indicating that parties engaged in pre-construction discussions, reviewed subcontractor candidates together, and issued direct-payment commitments—evidence consistent with legitimate subcontracting practices.

These findings were crucial in demonstrating that the client lacked any criminal intent in the subcontracting decision.

While some jurisdictions require strict written authorization, New York contract law evaluates subcontracting legitimacy based on intent, notice, and conduct.

This allowed us to establish that emails, payment guarantees, and project documentation collectively satisfied practical approval standards for valid subcontracting.

We argued that documentation requirements in New York are flexible and do not mandate a specific authorization format.

This strategy reframed the case from alleged unlawful subcontracting to a misunderstanding over documentation style.

New York regulators expect transparency in subcontracting chains, especially when involving safety-sensitive work or financial risk.

If a subcontractor is engaged without clear approval, investigators may suspect concealment or improper delegation.

In response, we highlighted the client’s good-faith actions to prevent project delays, evaluate subcontractor qualifications, and maintain communication—behaviors inconsistent with intentional illegal subcontracting.

To counter the allegation, our legal team focused on three critical components:

Evidence of pre-project coordination supporting implied consent

Functional written documentation validating subcontracting approval

Proof that the client lacked intent to conceal subcontracting arrangements

This structure enabled us to demonstrate that the issue was procedural, not criminal.

Our criminal-defense attorney conducted mock interrogations simulating questions likely to arise from the alleged unauthorized subcontracting.

We provided the client with structured guidance to avoid misstatements and accompanied him during the police interview for real-time legal support.

This helped establish credibility and prevented statements that could have been misinterpreted as intentional improper subcontracting.

Our construction-law team submitted a detailed memorandum containing:

Evidence of prior discussions validating implied consent for subcontracting

Direct-payment guarantees and project plans confirming functional written approval

Analysis proving the absence of intent to commit concealed subcontracting

This memorandum demonstrated that the client had taken reasonable measures to remain compliant throughout the subcontracting process.

This case illustrates essential lessons for businesses relying on subcontracting:

Maintain clear records documenting approval for subcontracting

Ensure transparent communication when secondary subcontractors are engaged

Consult legal counsel early to prevent escalation into investigations

Strong compliance practices help avoid disputes that may appear as unauthorized subcontracting.

Our firm continues to advise construction clients on subcontracting contracts, regulatory compliance, and dispute resolution.

We provide full representation during investigations, prepare legal opinions, and support all aspects of subcontracting compliance.

These services help companies operate safely and confidently in New York’s highly regulated construction environment.