Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The respondent's determination as to the underpayment of wages and benefits was supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181-182). We find no merit to the petitioner's contention that Labor Law § 223 denies it equal protection under the law, since the statute treats all prime contractors equally (see, Labor Law § 223; Matter of Abrams v Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 488, 492). In addition, holding the petitioner liable for the civil penalty of 25%, which was not excessive in light of the subcontractor's willful noncompliance and bad faith (see, Labor Law § 220-b [d]), advances the statutory purpose of holding general contractors responsible for the actions of their subcontractors (see, Matter of Taj Airconditioning Refrig. Co. v Goldin, 158 A.D.2d 350, 351; Matter of Canarsie Plumbing Heating Corp. v Goldin, 151 A.D.2d 331, 333-334). Finally, the interest award was proper (see, Labor Law § 220-b [c]). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.