In Bravo v. Pav-Lak Contracting, Inc., Sup Ct, Nassau Co., (Oct. 1, 1996), the Court explicitly held that Section 220-g relieved the plaintiffs, who were employees of a subcontractor on a public works project, from complying with the notice requirement of Section 137. The Court reasoned that, since the legislature enacted Section 220-g to afford a private right of action to underpaid laborers on public works projects, "it is improbable that the legislature would not also provide that suit could be instituted without complying with the notice provisions of the State Finance Law." Article 8 provides a means of enforcing the prevailing rate of wage law, the Court continued, but it "would be rendered absolutely futile absent access to the payment bond." The Court concludes that "requiring notice according to Section 137 would in many instances result in denying access to the bond." (Bravo, slip op. at 53.)