Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
EXHIBIT E
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
VINCENT SETTECASSI, PAMELA GRAHAM, Index No.: 152791/2018
and COREE SPENCER, individually and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFF GRAHAM'S
- against - DEFENDANTS'
RESPONSES TO
GOTHAM GOTHAM HALL
OhMMOM
HALL;
OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD,
LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON
AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any
other related entities,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules ("CPLR")
Plaintiff PAMELA GRAHAM ("Named Plaintiff", or "Plaintiff") by her attorneys Leeds Brown
Law, P.C., and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated (collectively "Plaintiffs"), hereby
provides her responses to GOTHAM HALL; GOTHAM HALL OPERATING ENTITY, LLC;
CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON AUERBACHER; BRUCE
A. KURTZ; and any other related entities, (collectively "Defendants"); Requests for Admission
Responses as follows:
NON-WAIVER AND RESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS
These responses and objections are made without, in any way, waiving or intending to
waive, but on the contrary reserving and intending to reserve the following:
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
1. Any and all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and
admissibility as evidence for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action,
of any of the materials or information provided herein or their subject matter;
2. The right to object to the use of any of the materials or information, or their subject
matter, in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, on any and all proper grounds;
3. The right to object on any and allproper grounds at any time to a demand for further
productions or responses or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter
of the interrogatories herein responded or objected to;
4. The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, modify, supplement or clarify any
of the responses and objections propounded herein; and
5. The right to interpose additional responses and objections and to move for an
appropriate protective order.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
6. Plaintiffs object to these Admissions that are duplicative and/or designed to harass
Plaintiffs and discourage participation by other individuals in this Action.
7. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar and to the extent they seek
disclosure information not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, and to the extent
they seek information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or control of the
Defendants.
8. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they call for the
information and responses that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
9. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar and to the extent they seek the
disclosure of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law.
10. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent they seek information
more properly suited for disclosure through depositions.
11. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar as there has been limited
Defendants'
discovery and review of payroll records. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or
modify these estimates upon the completion of party and non-party discovery.
12. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions on the ground that they do not identify
the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity.
13. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they seek information
that is not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action.
14. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are vague,
ambiguous and/or unclear.
15. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are overly broad,
burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
and limitations on the party's resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation.
16. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative.
17. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they seek information
that is recognized as confidential by law and/or would be deemed an unwarranted invasion of the
Plaintiff's privacy or the privacy of third parties.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
18. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they assume facts not
yet proven.
19. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses up to and including the
time of trial.
20. Plaintiffs reserve the right to make additional objections at any time and to move
for an appropriate protective order.
These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every
specific Interrogatory set forth below. The response to an individual Interrogatory is not a waiver
of these General Objections.
RESPONSES TO ADMISSION REQUESTS
1. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were issued to Plaintiff by CORE
ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALLROOM.
2. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were ever issued to Plaintiff by
GOTHAM HALL, LLC.
3. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were issued to Plaintiff by GOTHAM
HALL OPERATING ENTITY, LLC.
4. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she received cash tips directly from guests for
whom she performed services at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
5. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS no Defendant in this matter directly offered her a job to
work an event at Gotham Hall during the Relevant time Period.
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
6. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that, when
she worked as a server, Defendants directly assigned shifts to work at Gotham Hall during the
Relevant Period.
7. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that, when
she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter instructed her as to what uniform, if any, she
was required to wear in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall
during the Relevant Time Period.
8. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that no Defendant in this matter directly trained her on
how to perform her job in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall.
9. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in this matter provided her with an
employee handbook or other written company policy in connection with the work she performed
at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
10. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in thismatter provided her with either
an IRS form, W-2, or IRS form 1099, in connection with the work she performed at events held at
Gotham Hall during the Relevant Period.
11. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as server, no Defendant in this
matter provided her information on when to arrive at Gotham Hall in connection with the work
she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information
and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham.
12. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this
matter signed her in upon arriving at Gotham Hall to work an event during the Relevant Time
Period.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
13. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this
matter signed her out upon leaving an event she worked at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time
Period.
14. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this
matter disciplined her directly for any infractions she may have committed in connection with the
work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Period.
15. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, while she worked as a server, no Defendant in this
matter directly communicated with her regarding her rate of pay in connection with the work she
performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information
and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Spencer.
16. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this
matter directly communicated with her regarding payroll in connection with the work she
performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information
and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham.
17. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a bartender, no Defendant in
this matter directly communicated with her regarding payroll in connection with the work she
performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
18. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never raised any issues regarding payroll
directly to any Defendant in this matter during the Relevant Time Period.
19. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a server at events at Gotham
Hall, the catering company provided shift assignments in connection with the work she performed
at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief,
such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham.
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
20. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she shifted as a server at an event at Gotham
Hall, there was a captain from the catering company on site during the Relevant Time Period.
21. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that when she worked an event at Gotham Hall the
captains held a meeting prior to the event during the Relevant Period, inasmuch as she cannot
"held"
identify who such meetings.
22. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked at events at Gotham Hall, her
time was recorded by a captain during the Relevant Time Period.
23. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that when she worked as a server at an event at Gotham
Hall, the catering company provided her uniform instructions in connection with the work she
performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information
and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham.
24. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked as a server at an event at Gotham
Hall, the catering company provided you with either an IRS form W-2 or IRS form 1099 in
connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time
Period.
25. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked as a bartender at an event at
Gotham Hall, Hospitality Staffing LLC provided you with either an IRS form W-2 or IRS form
1099 in connection with the work you performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant
Time Period.
26. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that Gotham Hall paid you directly in connection with
work you performed as a bartender at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
27. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender for Thomas
Preti Catering at other venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant time
Period.
28. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Thomas Preti Catering had a no tipping policy in
connection with the work she performed as a server at events held at Gotham Hall during the
Relevant Time Period.
29. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Neuman's Catering had a no tipping policy in
connection with the work she performed as a server at events held at Gotham Hall during the
Relevant Time Period.
30. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender for
Neuman's Catering at other venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant
Time Period.
31. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender at other
venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant Period.
32. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that she had no set schedule for events she was assigned
to work at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
33. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that she had the ultimate discretion to accept or reject a
job that was offered to her to work as a server or bartender at Gotham Hall during the Relevant
Time Period.
34. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never worked a shift at Ziegfeld Ballroom
during the Relevant Time Period.
35. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she understood she would be receiving a set hourly
wage for events worked at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period.
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
36. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in this matter offered her fringe
benefits in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the
Relevant Time Period.
37. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, prior to commencing this matter, she had never seen
a contract between any Defendant and any of Defendants; clients who booked events at Gotham
Hall that she herself worked at during the Relevant Time Period.
38. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Defendants disclosed to their clients that any
administrative charge Defendants assessed was not a gratuity during the Relevant Time Period.
39. Plaintiff Graham DENIES Defendants disclosed to their clients that any service
charge Defendants assessed them was not a gratuity during the Relevant Time Period.
40. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that any
service and/or administrative charges assessed by Defendants to its clients on pricing documents
were placed above the sales tax line on during the Relevant Period.
41. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, prior to commencing this matter, she had never seen
Defendants'
an invoice between any Defendant and any of clients who booked events at Gotham
Hall that she herself worked at during the Relevant Time Period.
42. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, apart, from this matter, she has never made a
written representation that any Defendant in this case was her employer during the Relevant Time
Period.
43. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never represented on a job application that any
Defendant was her employer during the Relevant Time Period.
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
44. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she has never represented in an application for
unemployment benefits that any Defendant in this matter was her employer during the Relevant
Time Period.
45. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she has, or had, a personal relationship with
Maureen Acampora's brother.
46. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she asked Allan Kurtz to recommend her for the
position of coat check captain for events at Gotham Hall to Neuman's Catering.
Dated: May 28, 2020 LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
Carle Place, New York
/s/
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, New York 11514
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class
10
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 EXHIBIT E FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK VINCENT SETTECASSI, PAMELA GRAHAM, Index No.: 152791/2018 and COREE SPENCER, individually and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF GRAHAM'S - against - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO GOTHAM GOTHAM HALL OhMMOM HALL; OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any other related entities, Defendants. Pursuant to Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules ("CPLR") Plaintiff PAMELA GRAHAM ("Named Plaintiff", or "Plaintiff") by her attorneys Leeds Brown Law, P.C., and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated (collectively "Plaintiffs"), hereby provides her responses to GOTHAM HALL; GOTHAM HALL OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any other related entities, (collectively "Defendants"); Requests for Admission Responses as follows: NON-WAIVER AND RESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS These responses and objections are made without, in any way, waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary reserving and intending to reserve the following: 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 1. Any and all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and admissibility as evidence for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, of any of the materials or information provided herein or their subject matter; 2. The right to object to the use of any of the materials or information, or their subject matter, in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, on any and all proper grounds; 3. The right to object on any and allproper grounds at any time to a demand for further productions or responses or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the interrogatories herein responded or objected to; 4. The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses and objections propounded herein; and 5. The right to interpose additional responses and objections and to move for an appropriate protective order. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 6. Plaintiffs object to these Admissions that are duplicative and/or designed to harass Plaintiffs and discourage participation by other individuals in this Action. 7. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar and to the extent they seek disclosure information not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, and to the extent they seek information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. 8. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they call for the information and responses that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 9. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar and to the extent they seek the disclosure of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law. 10. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent they seek information more properly suited for disclosure through depositions. 11. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions insofar as there has been limited Defendants' discovery and review of payroll records. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or modify these estimates upon the completion of party and non-party discovery. 12. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions on the ground that they do not identify the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity. 13. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they seek information that is not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. 14. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or unclear. 15. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are overly broad, burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and limitations on the party's resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation. 16. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. 17. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they seek information that is recognized as confidential by law and/or would be deemed an unwarranted invasion of the Plaintiff's privacy or the privacy of third parties. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 18. Plaintiffs object to each of these Admissions to the extent that they assume facts not yet proven. 19. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses up to and including the time of trial. 20. Plaintiffs reserve the right to make additional objections at any time and to move for an appropriate protective order. These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every specific Interrogatory set forth below. The response to an individual Interrogatory is not a waiver of these General Objections. RESPONSES TO ADMISSION REQUESTS 1. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were issued to Plaintiff by CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALLROOM. 2. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were ever issued to Plaintiff by GOTHAM HALL, LLC. 3. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no paychecks were issued to Plaintiff by GOTHAM HALL OPERATING ENTITY, LLC. 4. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she received cash tips directly from guests for whom she performed services at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 5. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS no Defendant in this matter directly offered her a job to work an event at Gotham Hall during the Relevant time Period. 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 6. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that, when she worked as a server, Defendants directly assigned shifts to work at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Period. 7. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter instructed her as to what uniform, if any, she was required to wear in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 8. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that no Defendant in this matter directly trained her on how to perform her job in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall. 9. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in this matter provided her with an employee handbook or other written company policy in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 10. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in thismatter provided her with either an IRS form, W-2, or IRS form 1099, in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Period. 11. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as server, no Defendant in this matter provided her information on when to arrive at Gotham Hall in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham. 12. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter signed her in upon arriving at Gotham Hall to work an event during the Relevant Time Period. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 13. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter signed her out upon leaving an event she worked at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 14. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter disciplined her directly for any infractions she may have committed in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Period. 15. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, while she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter directly communicated with her regarding her rate of pay in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Spencer. 16. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a server, no Defendant in this matter directly communicated with her regarding payroll in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham. 17. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a bartender, no Defendant in this matter directly communicated with her regarding payroll in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 18. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never raised any issues regarding payroll directly to any Defendant in this matter during the Relevant Time Period. 19. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, when she worked as a server at events at Gotham Hall, the catering company provided shift assignments in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham. 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 20. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, when she shifted as a server at an event at Gotham Hall, there was a captain from the catering company on site during the Relevant Time Period. 21. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that when she worked an event at Gotham Hall the captains held a meeting prior to the event during the Relevant Period, inasmuch as she cannot "held" identify who such meetings. 22. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked at events at Gotham Hall, her time was recorded by a captain during the Relevant Time Period. 23. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that when she worked as a server at an event at Gotham Hall, the catering company provided her uniform instructions in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period, as upon information and belief, such information was passed from Defendants through a third party to Plaintiff Graham. 24. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked as a server at an event at Gotham Hall, the catering company provided you with either an IRS form W-2 or IRS form 1099 in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 25. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that when she worked as a bartender at an event at Gotham Hall, Hospitality Staffing LLC provided you with either an IRS form W-2 or IRS form 1099 in connection with the work you performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 26. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that Gotham Hall paid you directly in connection with work you performed as a bartender at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 27. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender for Thomas Preti Catering at other venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant time Period. 28. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Thomas Preti Catering had a no tipping policy in connection with the work she performed as a server at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 29. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Neuman's Catering had a no tipping policy in connection with the work she performed as a server at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 30. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender for Neuman's Catering at other venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant Time Period. 31. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she worked as a server and/or bartender at other venues (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Ballroom) during the Relevant Period. 32. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that she had no set schedule for events she was assigned to work at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 33. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that she had the ultimate discretion to accept or reject a job that was offered to her to work as a server or bartender at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 34. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never worked a shift at Ziegfeld Ballroom during the Relevant Time Period. 35. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she understood she would be receiving a set hourly wage for events worked at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 36. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that no Defendant in this matter offered her fringe benefits in connection with the work she performed at events held at Gotham Hall during the Relevant Time Period. 37. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, prior to commencing this matter, she had never seen a contract between any Defendant and any of Defendants; clients who booked events at Gotham Hall that she herself worked at during the Relevant Time Period. 38. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that Defendants disclosed to their clients that any administrative charge Defendants assessed was not a gratuity during the Relevant Time Period. 39. Plaintiff Graham DENIES Defendants disclosed to their clients that any service charge Defendants assessed them was not a gratuity during the Relevant Time Period. 40. Plaintiff Graham lacks sufficient knowledge to either ADMIT or DENY that any service and/or administrative charges assessed by Defendants to its clients on pricing documents were placed above the sales tax line on during the Relevant Period. 41. Plaintiff Graham DENIES that, prior to commencing this matter, she had never seen Defendants' an invoice between any Defendant and any of clients who booked events at Gotham Hall that she herself worked at during the Relevant Time Period. 42. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that, apart, from this matter, she has never made a written representation that any Defendant in this case was her employer during the Relevant Time Period. 43. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she never represented on a job application that any Defendant was her employer during the Relevant Time Period. 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 44. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she has never represented in an application for unemployment benefits that any Defendant in this matter was her employer during the Relevant Time Period. 45. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she has, or had, a personal relationship with Maureen Acampora's brother. 46. Plaintiff Graham ADMITS that she asked Allan Kurtz to recommend her for the position of coat check captain for events at Gotham Hall to Neuman's Catering. Dated: May 28, 2020 LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. Carle Place, New York /s/ Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class 10