Motion to Amend in Robert Harris v. Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan, Moris Zilkha, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, John Does 1 - 10, Abc Corps. 1

On January 10, 2017 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Robert Harris, and Abc Corps. 1 - 8, Intimo, Inc., John Does 1 - 10, Moris Zilkha, Nathan Nathan, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A K A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A K A Prestige Employee Administrators, Tommy Nathan, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

ROBERT HARRIS, Plaintiff designates
New York County as the
Place of Trial

Basis of Venue is
Plaintiff, Location of Relevant Events

Index No.__________.
650175/2017

vs. Date Purchased 1/10/2017

INTIMO, INC., NATHAN NATHAN SUMMONS
individually, TOMMY NATHAN, individually,
MORIS ZILKHA, individually, PRESTIGE
EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
a/k/a PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS, PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS II, INC. a/k/a PRESTIGE
EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS and JOHN Formatted: Justified
DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-108,
fictitious names for persons or entities whose
present roles and identities are unknown,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint in this

action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this

Summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff’s Attorney within twenty (20)

days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30)

days afterthe service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered toyou

1 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

within the Stateof New York); and in case ofyour failureto appear or answer,judg==t

willbe taken againstyou default forthe reliefdemandad inthe Ce-pld-t
by

DATED: New York, New York
January-10-20W-April 23, 2019

Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
MEYERS FRIED-GRODIN, LLP
Attorneys forPlaintiffRobert Harris
Empire StateBuildin
350 Fifth Avenue, 59 Floor
New York, NY 10118
Phone: (646)596-1292
TO: E-mail: JMcycrs@MfgLegal.com

INTIMO, INC.
29* 56
143 West Street, Floor
New York, NY 10001

NATHAN NATHAN
29* 56
143 West Street, Floor
New York, NY 10001

TOMMY NATHAN
29* 56
143 West Street, Floor
New York, NY 10001

MORIS ZILKHA
29* 56
143 West Street, Floor
New York, NY 10001

PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS. INC. a/k/a PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS

2 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 311
Mellville, NY 11747

PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS II, INC. a/k/a PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS
538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 311
Mellville, NY 11747

3 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff designates
ROBERT HARRIS, New York County as the
Place of Trial

Plaintiff, Basis of Venue is
Location of Relevant Events

Index No.__________.
650175/2017
vs.
Date Purchased 1/10/2017
INTIMO, INC., NATHAN NATHAN
individually, TOMMY NATHAN, individually, FIRST AMENDED Formatted: Font: 14 pt

COMPLAINT
MORIS ZILKHA, individually, PRESTIGE
EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
a/k/a PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS and JOHN Formatted: Justified
DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-108,
fictitious names for persons or entities whose
present roles and identities are unknown,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff above named, by his attorneys, Meyers Fried-Grodin, LLP, complaining

of the Defendants herein, respectfully show to this Court and allege as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is an action, by an aggrieved individual against his former employer, alleging

violations of state and city law, for: (i) age discrimination; (ii) retaliation; and (iii) failure

to pay several hundred thousands of dollars of compensation owed to Plaintiff.

THE PARTIES

4 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

A. Plaintiff Robert Harris

2. Plaintiff Robert Harris (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Harris”) is an individual who resides in

the State of New Jersey.

B. Defendant Intimo, Inc.

3. Between in or about 2010 and February 24, 2016, Mr. Harris was employed by

Intimo, Inc. (“Intimo”) where he worked as Vice President of Sales (and was eventually

promoted to Senior Vice President of Sales and Licensing).

4. Upon information and belief, Intimo is (and at all relevant times, has been) a

domestic business entity in the State of New York.

5. Upon information and belief,Intimo maintains a principal place of business at

143 West 29th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001, in the County of New York.

6. Intimo is in the business of fashion and apparel manufacturing.

C. Defendant Nathan Nathan

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nathan Nathan is the founder and owner

Intimo.

8. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mr. Nathan has and does reside

in the State of New York.

9. According to his Linkedin profile, Mr. Nathan has been the President & C.E.O. of

Intimo since 1990. See Exhibit A, attached. That is the position that he held at all

relevant times.

5 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

10. At all relevant times, Mr. Nathan exercised close control over the managerial

operations of Intimo, including policies and practices concerning employees, determining

whether employees were exempt from overtime laws, wages, compensation, and payroll.

11. At all relevant times, Mr. Nathan had complete discretion and authority to make

hiring and firing decisions.

12. Upon information and belief, Mr. Nathan is one of the ten largest shareholders of

Intimo.

13. Accordingly, pursuant to, inter alia, New York Business Corporation Law

(“BCL”) § 630, Mr. Nathan is individually liable for the wage and hour violations alleged

in this Complaint.

14. Upon information and belief,at allrelevant times, Mr. Nathan controlled the

terms and conditions of employment, supervised employees, made decisions as to hiring

and firing,and as to determining the rate and method of the payment of wages with

respect to Plaintiffs.

15. Upon information and belief, at allrelevant times, Nathan Nathan and Intimo

were alter egos of one another.

16. At all relevant times, Defendant Nathan Nathan acted as the employer of Plaintiff

within the meaning of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”).

D. Defendant Tommy Nathan

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tommy Nathan is the brother of

Company founder Nathan Nathan.

6 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

18. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Tommy Nathan has and does

reside in the State of New York.

19. According to his Linkedin profile, Tommy Nathan is the Vice President of Intimo.

See Exhibit B, attached. That is the position that he held at all relevant times.

20. Upon information and belief, Tommy Nathan is one of the ten largest

shareholders of Intimo.

21. Accordingly, pursuant to, inter alia, BCL § 630, Tommy Nathan is individually

liable for the wage and hour violations alleged in this Complaint.

22. At all relevant times, Tommy Nathan exercised close control over the managerial

operations of Intimo, including policies and practices concerning employees, determining

whether employees were exempt from overtime laws, wages, compensation, and payroll.

23. At all relevanttimes, Tommy Nathan had complete discretion and authority to

make hiring and firing decisions.

24. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Tommy Nathan controlled the

terms and conditions of employment, supervised employees, made decisions as to hiring

and firing,and as to determining the rate and method of the payment of wages with

respect to Plaintiffs.

25. Upon information and belief,at all relevant times,Tommy Nathan and Intimo

were alter egos of one another.

26. At all relevant times, Defendant Tommy Nathan acted as the employer of Plaintiff

within the meaning of the NYLL.

E. Defendant Moris Zilkha

7 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

27. Defendant Moris Zilkha is the father-in-law of Company founder Nathan Nathan.

28. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mr. Zilkha has and does reside

in the State of New York.

29. Mr. Zilkha is General Manager of Intimo and previously was in the role of Chief

Financial Officer.

30. Additionally, Mr. Zilkha has been, and upon information and belief,stillisa

corporate officer of Intimo, holding the office of Treasurer.
See Intimo’s 2011 Business

Corporation Biennial Statement, filed with the New York Department of State, attached

hereto as Exhibit C.

31. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zilkha is one of the ten largest shareholders of

Intimo.

32. Accordingly, pursuant to, inter alia, BCL § 630, Mr. Zilkha is individually liable

for the wage and hour violations alleged in this Complaint.

33. At all relevant times, Mr. Zilkha exercised close control over the managerial

operations of Intimo, including policies and practices concerning employees, determining

whether employees were exempt from overtime laws, wages, compensation, and payroll.

34. At all relevant times, Mr. Zilkha had complete discretion and authority to make

hiring and firing decisions.

35. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mr. Zilkha controlled the terms

and conditions of employment, supervised employees, made decisions as to hiring and

firing, and as to determining the rate and method of the payment of wages with respect to

Plaintiffs.

8 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

36. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mr. Zilkha and Intimo were

alter egos of one another.

37. At all relevant times, Defendant Moris Zilkha acted as the employer of Plaintiff

within the meaning of the NYLL.

F. Defendant Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. Formatted: Indent: Left:
0.5",No bullets or
numbering

38. Defendant Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee

Administrators (“Prestige I”) is a professional employer organization.

39. Upon information and belief, Prestige I is a domestic business entity in the State

of New York.

40. Upon information and belief, Prestige I maintains a principal place of business at

538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 311, Mellville, NY 11747.

41. Prestige I is in the business of assuming human resources tasks, including

assuming payroll duties, for a number of business.

42. Prestige I entered into a contract with Intimo, effective at all relevant times, to be

an employer of Plaintiff and to execute payroll operations.

43. At all relevant times, Prestige I was a joint employer of Plaintiff and acted as the

employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of the NYLL.

G. Defendant Prestige Employee Administrators II, Inc. Formatted:No bullets or numbering

44. Defendant Prestige Employee Administrators II, Inc. a/k/aPrestige Employee

Administrators (“Prestige II”) is a professional employer organization.

45. Upon information and belief, Prestige II is a domestic business entity in the State

of New York.

9 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

46. Upon information and belief, Prestige II maintains a principal place of business at

538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 311, Mellville, NY 11747.

47. Prestige II is in the business of assuming human resources tasks, including

assuming payroll duties, for a number of business.

48. Prestige II entered into a contract with Intimo, effective at all relevant times, to be

an employer of Plaintiff and to execute payroll operations.

49. At all relevant times, Prestige II was a joint employer of Plaintiff and acted as the

employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of the NYLL.

50. Upon information and belief, atall relevant times,Prestige II shared the same

offices, geographic location, officers, owners, employees and finances as Prestige I.

51. Accordingly Prestige I and Prestige II are alter egos of one another.

37. Formatted:No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Indent: Left:
0"

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

38.52. With respect to Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim, in April 2016, he filed

a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) dated April 25, 2016.

39.53. On September 21, 2016, the EEOC issued a Right to Sue Letter to Mr.

Harris.

40.54. Then, on September 30, 2016, Plaintifffiled a Complaint regarding his

claims with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case

10 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

No. 1:16-cv-07672, (which contained largely the same allegations as those set forth

herein).

41.55. The only substantive difference between the federal court Complaint and

the instant Complaint is that the federal court Complaint included a federal claim of age

discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et.

seq. (“ADEA”). The instant Complaint does not contain an ADEA claim.

42.56. All parties appeared in the aforementioned federal lawsuit.

43.57. After filing the federal lawsuit, and before an Answer was filed,

Defendants provided information to Plaintiff reflecting that Intimo, Inc. had less than 20

employees. Therefore, the ADEA claim could not be sustained, and there was no basis

for federal jurisdiction.

44.58. On January 10, 2017, Plaintifffiled a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,

without prejudice,pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)with the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York.

45.59. Subsequently, on January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint,

which contains no federal claims.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

46.60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

A. Mr. Harris Was an Exceptional Performer

47.61. Mr. Harris came to the Company with stellarcredentialsand years of

valuable experience.

11 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

48.62. He was a remarkable performer, having achieved, inter alia, the

following: (i) consistently beating his annual sales goals; (ii) started a children’s division

for the Company; (iii) brought in valuable entertainment licensing (which had previously

been non-existent); (iv) salvaged Walmart private label business, which had been failing;

and (v) grew the Jockey business to become one of the most profitable parts Intimo’s

business.

49.63. Clearly, Mr. Harris was qualified for the position he held.

50.64. By all objective measures, Mr. Harris was the kind of employee that

Intimo would have been expected to seek to retain – barring a hidden unlawful motive.

B. Mr. Harris Was Denied Promised Compensation

i. Unpaid Commissions

51.65. When Mr. Harris was terminated in February 2016, he was not paid

commissions that were due and owing to him over the course of several years.

52.66. The NYLL requires employers to codify commission plans in writing,

signed by both the employer and employee, and requires employers to actually pay out

the commissions to employees within five business days after the commissions are

earned. N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 191(c), 191-B and 191-C.

53.67. The Company, through Mr. Nathan, directly communicated written

promises of commissions on or about December 30, 2009. See the e-mails between the

parties attached hereto as Exhibits D and E, attached.

54.68. However, the Company did not fulfillits obligation to pay those

commissions to Mr. Harris.

12 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

55.69. The total amount of commissions owed to Mr. Harris, at the time of his

termination, was approximately $267,380.00.

56.70. More specifically, for calendar year 2010, Mr. Harris should have received

$12,694.00 in commissions. However, he received $0.00 in commissions for 2010.

57.71. For calendar year 2011, Mr. Harris should have received $216,617.00 in

commissions. However, he received $0.00 in commissions for 2011.

58.72. For calendar year 2012, Mr. Harris should have received $38,069.00 in

commissions. However, he received $0.00 in commissions for 2011.

59.73. Additionally, an as-yet uncalculated commission is owed to Mr. Harris for

2016.

60.74. The excuses given by Mr. Nathan, for failingto pay the commissions,

included saying he could not afford it, or by claiming that the written commission plan

was not what he intended.

61.75. None of these excuses relieve the Company’s obligation to pay, nor do

they provide a legitimate defense under the NYLL.

ii. Shorted Salary

62.76. Furthermore, between the years 2010 and 2015, the Company failed to pay

Plaintiff’s full promised salary.

63.77. Ultimately, the amount that Plaintiffwas shorted was approximately

$88,863.00.

13 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

64.78. More specifically, for calendar year 2010, Mr. Harris should have received

$100,000. However, he only received $92,502.00 for 2010.

65.79. For calendar year 2011, Mr. Harris should have received $125,000.00.

However, he only received $110,790.00 for 2011.

66.80. For calendar year 2012, Mr. Harris should have received $150,000.00.

However, he only received $119,952.00 for 2012.

67.81. For calendar year 2013, Mr. Harris should have received $150,000.00.

However, he only received $143,487 for 2013.

68.82. For calendar year 2014, Mr. Harris should have received $150,000.00.

However, he only received $136,007.00 for 2014.

69.83. For calendar year 2015, Mr. Harris should have received $150,000.00.

However, he only received $133,399.00 for 2015.

70.84. Incredibly, Mr. Nathan promised a salary to Mr. Harris – and then after

Mr. Harris performed the work – justified the shortfall by claiming to retroactively reduce

Mr. Harris’ salary!

71.85. Beyond that, Mr. Nathan even demanded that Mr. Harris return some of

his already-earned salary.

72.86. At first, Mr. Nathan demanded that Plaintiff return $5,000.00 of salary that

had already been paid. After Plaintiff protested this, Company management ultimately

only took back approximately $2,200.00.

C. Plaintiff Was Fired Because of His Age and Due to Unlawful Retaliation –
Consequently, Management Was Unable to Articulate a Legitimate
Reason for Terminating Plaintiff

14 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

73.87. Mr. Harris’ date of birth is April 13, 1950. He was 65 years old at the time

of his termination.

74.88. Near to the end of Mr. Harris’ employment (i.e.,
beginning around

Autumn 2015), it became apparent that the Company’s management began to set him up

for termination and replacement with two younger persons.

75.89. At around that time, management began taking away Mr. Harris’

responsibilitiesand giving them to Sarah Daitzman (who is approximately 25 years

younger than Mr. Harris).

76.90. Nathan Nathan even reassigned accounts from Mr. Harris to Ms.

Daitzman, including the very valuable Target account.

77.91. Moreover, Mr. Harris was being excluded from important meetings and

discussions and management directed others to surreptitiously do work that Mr. Harris

used to do. Mr. Harris was even excluded from the interviewing of a new salesperson

named Shannon (yet Ms. Daitzman was included in this process).

78.92. Also, communications that were ordinarily part of Mr. Harris’ duties were

now being channeled to Ms. Daitzman.

79.93. All of this appeared to be deliberately calculated to diminish Mr. Harris’

job responsibilities to the point wherein the Company could be prepared to terminate him

while avoiding a rough transition of his work to the younger replacement.

80.94. Mr. Harris complained, in or about November 2015 and December 2015,

about the mistreatment that the Company was directing toward him.

15 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

81.95. However, Mr. Nathan’s only response was to be evasive, dismissive and

appear irritated.Mr. Harris told Mr. Nathan, among other things, that it was wrong for

Mr. Harris’ wages to be reduced retroactively.

82.96. Mr. Nathan responded by becoming red-faced, angry and snorting that he

did not want to talk about it anymore.

83.97. Mr. Nathan pushed off this difficult discussion onto a member of his staff,

Sonia Centeno.

84.98. When Mr. Harris was told thathe was firedon or about February 24,

2016, Mr. Nathan could not offer any legitimate reason for the termination.

85.99. Instead, Mr. Nathan could only offer such amorphous explanations as just

“things were not working out.”

86.100. Mr. Harris set forth examples of his many accomplishments and additions

of value to the Company over the years.

87.101. In response, Mr. Nathan was unable to refute them, nor was he able to

identify any deficiencies in Mr. Harris’ performance.

88.102. (Additionally, shortly before Mr. Harris’ termination, Intimo had

completed a written verification of employment directed to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

in which the Company indicated that it expected Mr. Harris to enjoy continued

employment).

89.103. Mr. Nathan could only fall back on vague and non-substantive reasoning,

i.e., by saying that he just needed “to make a change.” Mr. Nathan, in fact, admitted that

Mr. Harris “did a good job.”

16 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

90.104. Indeed, Mr. Nathan claimed that he would consider allowing Mr. Harris to

work on a commission only basis and said that they should sleep on it and discuss it on

Monday.

91.105. However, this statement was clearly not truthful, as the Company already

had two younger people ready and in place to assume Mr. Harris’ job duties.

92.106. (Of additional note, Mr. Nathan, during a staff meeting to address Mr.

Harris’ departure, maintained that Mr. Harris had done a good job, yet despite all of his

accomplishments, Mr. Nathan simply felt that he “needed to make a change.”

93.107. Staff members were clearly upset about Mr. Harris’ termination.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(New York Labor Law – Unpaid Wages)

94.108. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

95.109. In violation of, inter alia, the NYLL, the Defendants have failed to pay

Plaintiff compensation owed to him.

96.110. Defendants failure to pay commissions owed to Plaintiff violates,inter

alia, NYLL §§191(c), 191-B and 191-C.

97.111. Additionally, Defendants purportedly retro-actively reduced pay that was

previously promised to Plaintiff at a set rate.
This violates NYLL § 193.

98.112. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

17 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(New York Wage Theft Prevention Act)

99. Plaintiffre-allegesand incorporates the allegations set forth in the paragraphs

above.

100. Defendants failed to provide notices as required by the New York Wage

Theft Prevention Act. This violates NYLL § 195.

101. At no time during Plaintiff’semployment (including each of the years

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016) did Plaintiff receive the required notice.

102. The Act provides for a private cause of action and remedy of money

damages.

103. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A THIRD SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age Discrimination Under the NYSHRL)

104.113. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

105.114. Defendants caused Plaintiffto experience adverse employment actions,

including discharge from his employment, due to his age.

18 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

106.115. Defendants’ actions constitute violations of the New York State Human

Rights Law (New York Executive Law § 296)(“NYSHRL”).

107.116. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of

employment, and a loss of wages, benefits, advancements in seniority, and other

emoluments of employment.

108.117. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress.

109.118. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age Discrimination Under the NYCHRL)

110.119. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

111.120. Defendants caused Plaintiffto experience adverse employment actions,

including discharge from his employment, due to his age.

112.121. Defendants’ actions constituteviolations of the New York City Human

Rights Law (New York City Administrative Code Section 8-107 et seq.)(“NYCHRL”).

113.122. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of

employment, and a loss of wages, benefits, advancements in seniority, and other

emoluments of employment.

114.123. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress.

19 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

115.124. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NYSHRL Retaliation)

116. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

117. Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiffs for having engaged in

legally-protected activity within the meaning of the NYSHRL.

118. As a direct and proximate resultof the aforesaid occurrence, Plaintiff

sustained injuries.

119. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NYCHRL Retaliation)

120. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

121. Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiffs for having engaged in

legally-protected activity within the meaning of the NYCHRL.

20 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

122. As a direct and proximate resultof the aforesaid occurrence, Plaintiff

sustained injuries.

123. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)

124. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

125. Defendant Nathan Nathan (and Intimo, via Mr. Nathan), promised to pay

Plaintiff certain compensation.

126. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the promised compensation.

127. Nathan Nathan and Intimo (via Mr. Nathan) never intended to pay the

promised compensation to Plaintiff and accordingly, the statements made to Mr. Nathan

about that compensation were knowingly false.

128. Nathan Nathan and Intimo (via Mr. Nathan) intended that Plaintiff rely on

these misrepresentations.

129. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these misrepresentations.

130. Plaintiff was harmed by his reliance on these misrepresentations.

131. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered harm.

21 of 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2019 02:26 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2019

132. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights thus warranting the imposition of punitive

damages.

133. At allrelevant times, the individual who made the representations to

Plaintiff acted as an agent of the Intimo and Intimo is vicariously liable for his actions.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTH FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)

134.125. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

135.126. Plaintiff was a party to a contact entitling him to certain compensation.

136.127. There was valid consideration provided for the promise of compensation

the form of Plaintiff’s work.

137.128. Defendants did not provide the promised compensation and thereby

breached the contract.

138.129. Plaintiff has been harmed as a result.

139.130. Defendants’ unlawful conduct was egregious, willful,wanton and/or in

reckless disregard of Plaintiff’srights and, moreover, upon information and belief,

involved the participation of upper management, thus warranting the imposition of

punitive damages.

140.131. At all relevant times, the individual

Case Info

Judge

Nancy M. Bannon Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 23, 2019

Case Filing Date

January 10, 2017

County

Parties

ABC Corps. 1 - 8 Defendant
BAGINSKI, ERIC TADEUSZ Attorney for the Defendants
Intimo, Inc. Defendant
John Does 1 - 10 Defendant
LICHTENBERG, DAVID B. Attorney for the Defendant
LICHTENBERG, DAVID B. Attorney for the Defendants
MARCUS, SETH L Attorney for the Defendant
MARCUS, SETH L Attorney for the Defendants
MEYERS, JONATHAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
Moris Zilkha Defendant
Nathan Nathan Defendant
Prestige Employee Administrators II, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators Defendant
Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators Defendant
Robert Harris Plaintiff
Tommy Nathan Defendant
JONATHAN MEYER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jessica Meyers Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ERIC TANT Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Robert Harris v. Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan, Moris Zilkha, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, John Does 1 - 10, Abc Corps. 1 - 8

Preview

Case Info

Parties