Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated,
Index No.: 160513/2018
Plaintiffs,
- against -
NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and
DONALD BERGER,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
James E. Murphy, Esq.
Rachel R. Feingold, Esq.
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class
i
1 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
POINT I:
CERTIFICATION OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE ..........................................5
A. CPLR § 901 IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED ........................................................7
B. PREVAILING WAGE CLASS ACTIONS ARE THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR
TRADE MISCLASSIFICATION CASES SUCH AS THIS...............................................9
C. THIS ACTION SATISFIES ALL THE PREREQUISITES OF SECTION 901 ..............10
(1) The Class Is So Numerous That Joinder of All Members is Impracticable...........11
(2) The Questions of Law and Fact Common to The Class Predominate Over
Questions Affecting Only Individual Class Members ..........................................13
(i) The Claims of Each Member of the Putative Class Arise from a Common
Wrong ........................................................................................................13
(ii) Predominance .............................................................................................14
(iii) Predominance and Proof of Liability .........................................................17
(3) The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the Putative Class ...18
(4) The Named Plaintiff Will Fairly And Adequately Protect the Interests of The
Class .......................................................................................................................20
(5) A Class Action Is Superior to Other Available Methods.......................................22
C. CONSIDERATION OF § 902 FACTORS SUPPORTS A DETERMINATION OF
CLASS CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
ii
2 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse,
252 A.D.2d 179 (1st Dep’t 1998) ..................................................................................................19
Alfaro v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.,
69 A.D.3d 436 (1st Dep’t 2010) ....................................................................................................21
Andrejuk v. National Environmental Safety Co. Inc.,
94 Civ. 4638 (S.D.N.Y.) ................................................................................................................21
Banasiak v. Fox Indus., Ltd.,
2016 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Mar. 23, 2016)........................................................10, 14
Barone v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.,
2005 WL 2009882 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)..............................................................................................21
Borden v. 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P.,
24 N.Y.3d 382 (2014) ........................................................................................................12, 17, 20
Brandon v. Chefetz,
106 A.D.2d 162 (1st Dep’t 1985) .......................................................................................... passim
Brandy v. Canea Mare Contracting, Inc.,
34 A.D.3d 512 (2d Dep’t 2006) .................................................................................................6, 21
Brunson v. City of New York,
94 Civ. 4507 (S.D.N.Y.) ................................................................................................................21
Cardona v. Maramount Corp.,
2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 12, 2009) ................................................16, 21
City of New York v. Maul,
14 N.Y.3d 499, 508, 512, (2010) ......................................................................................5, 7, 8, 15
Cox v. Nap Construction Company, Inc.,
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2004, aff’d, 10 N.Y.3d 592 (2008) ...................................................................21
Dabrowski v. ABAX Incorporated,
2008 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 10248, (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Sep. 26, 2008), aff’d 64 A.D.3d 426 (1st Dept.
2009) ...................................................................................................................................9, 17, 21
Dabrowski v. Abax,
2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3507 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 84 A.D.3d 633 (1st Dep’t
2011) ...................................................................................................................................... passim
iii
3 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock& Repair Co., Inc.,
21 N.Y.3d 530 (2013) ....................................................................................................................21
Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.,
45 Misc. 3d 362 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 9, 2013) ..............................................................................17
Englade v. Harper Collins Publs., Inc.,
289 A.D.2d 159 (1st Dep’t 2001) ..............................................................................................7, 17
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.,
78 A.D.2d 83 (2d Dep’t 1980) ............................................................................................... passim
Galdamez v. Biordi Constr. Corp.,
13 Misc. 3d 1224A (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. June 8 2006), aff’d 50 A.D.3d 357 (Apr. 8, 2008) .. passim
Geiger v. Amer. Tobacco Co.,
181 Misc.2d 875 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty 1999) ......................................................................13
Gilman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
404 N.Y.S.2d 258, 93 Misc.2d 941 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 1978) .......................................................24
Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co.,
59 A.D.3d 129 (2d Dep’t 2008) .....................................................................................................17
Gonzalez v. Nicholas Zito Racing Stable, Inc.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27598 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2008) .............................................................21
Guzman v. VLM, Inc.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15821 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2008) ...............................................................21
Hoffman v. New York Stone Co.,
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 29, 2006 ...................................................................................................21
Hurrell-Harring v. State of N.Y.,
81 A.D.3d 69 (3d Dep’t 2011) .........................................................................................................9
Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm,
239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ...................................................................................................14
Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc.,
17 A.D.3d 318 (2d Dep’t 2005) .......................................................................................................6
Juarez. v. U.S.A. Roofing Co. Corp.,
2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2246 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2017).........................................7, 11, 14, 19
iv
4 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
Kopacz v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.,
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2011 ..................................................................................................................21
Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.,
65 A.D.3d 481 (1st Dep’t 2009) ............................................................................................ passim
Lamarca v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.,
55 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dep’t 2008) ....................................................................................................22
Lewis v. Hallen Construction Co., Inc.,
2019 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 2170 (Sup. Ct.N.Y.Co. May 3, 2019) ......................................9, 10, 12, 14
Maor v. One Fifty Seven Corp.,
2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1333 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2018) ...................................................7, 8
Matter of Stewart v. Roberts,
163 A.D.3d 89 (3d Dept 2018) ......................................................................................................12
Mimnorm Realty Corp. v. Sunrise Fed’l. Savings and Loan Ass’n.,
83 A.D.2d 936 (2d Dep’t 1981), app. dismissed, 57 N.Y.2d 859, reargument denied, 58 N.Y.2d
730 (1982) ......................................................................................................................................15
Mohamed v. Glob. Sec. Assocs., LLC,
2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1565 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2016) .........................................12, 13, 15
Morris v. Alle Processing, Corp.,
E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2009 .................................................................................................................21
Nawrocki v. Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp.,
82 A.D.3d 534 (1st Dep’t 2011) ............................................................................................ passim
Ortiz v. J.P. Jack Corp.,
286 A.D.2d 671 (2d Dep’t 2001) .....................................................................................................6
Pajaczek v. Cema Construction Corp.,
2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 701 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008) ........................................................ passim
Papantoniou v. V. Barile Inc.,
2015 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 4236, (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Nov. 18, 2015) .......................................10, 14, 21
Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc.,
251 A.D.2d 11 (1st Dep’t 1998) ............................................................................................ passim
Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.,
74 A.D.3d 420 (1st Dep’t 2010) ..............................................................................................17, 19
v
5 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
Pruitt v. Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.,
167 A.D.2d 14 (1st Dep’t 1991) ............................................................................................ passim
Rodriguez v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc.,
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Nov. 1, 2006 .....................................................................................................21
Senter v. General Motors Corp.,
532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 870 (1976) ...........................................................13
Simon v. Cunard Line,
75 A.D.2d 283 ................................................................................................................................16
Smith v. Atlas International Tours, et al.,
80 A.D.2d 762 (1st Dep’t 1981) ....................................................................................................12
Stecko v. RLI Insurance Co.,
121 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dep’t 2014) .......................................................................................... passim
Sullivan v. International Fidelity Co.,
225 A.D.2d 128, 679 N.Y.S.2d 391 (1st Dep’t 1998) ...................................................................21
Sullivan v. True Plumbing and Heating Corp., et al.,
Sup Ct. N.Y. Co. 1997 ...................................................................................................................21
Velasquez v. Sunstone Red Oak, LLC,
2018 NY Slip Op 32536(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty, Aug. 21, 2018) ............................16
Velez v. Majik Cleaning Serv.,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 709 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2005) ..................................................................21
Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc.,
138 A.D3d 546 (1st Dep’t 2016) ..........................................................................................
passim
Wilder v. May Department Stores Company,
23 A.D.3d 646 (2d Dep’t 2005) .......................................................................................................6
Williams v. Air Serve Corporation,
2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2243 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2013) aff’d 121 A.D.3d ...................11, 22
Williams v. Air Service Corp.,
121 A.D.3d 441 (1st Dep’t 2014) .......................................................................................... passim
Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC,
2020 N.Y. Slip Op 30061(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2020) .......................................................12
vi
6 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.,
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 26, 2005 ...................................................................................................21
STATUTES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ......................................................................................8
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a)(3) ...........................................................................18
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)..................................................................................8
CPLR § 104......................................................................................................................................8
CPLR § 901............................................................................................................................ passim
CPLR § 901(a) ...................................................................................................................5, 7, 8, 17
CPLR § 901(a)(1) ..........................................................................................................................11
CPLR § 901(a)(3) .........................................................................................................................18
CPLR § 901(a)(4) .........................................................................................................................20
CPLR § 901(a)(5) ......................................................................................................................5, 22
CPLR § 902..........................................................................................................................6, 11, 24
CPLR § 902(1) ...............................................................................................................................24
CPLR § 902(2) ...............................................................................................................................25
CPLR § 902(3) ...............................................................................................................................24
CPLR § 902(4) ...............................................................................................................................25
CPLR § 902(5) ...............................................................................................................................25
Labor Law § 220 ........................................................................................................................9, 10
OTHER AUTHORITIES
2 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, N.Y. Civ. Practice, § 901.09 ............................................................18
3 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, N.Y. Civil Practice § 901.11 ............................................................13
vii
7 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Lange Campbell (“Named
Plaintiff”) and a putative class of individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) who furnished labor to
Defendants New York Boiler, Inc., Richard Berger, and Donald Berger (collectively “NY Boiler” or
“Defendants”) to recover wages and benefits which Named Plaintiff and the members of the putative
class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on New York
City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) projects in New York (hereinafter referred to as the “NYCHA
Projects” or “Public Works Projects”). [A true and accurate copy of the Summons and Complaint is
annexed to the Affirmation of Lloyd Ambinder (“Ambinder Affirm.”) as Exhibit A]. Specifically,
Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant NY Boiler misclassified the putative class members under the
“Boiler Service Person” and “Service Fitter” job classifications which provided far less financial
compensation for the work they performed than the appropriate classifications of Boilermaker and
Steamfitter.
The instant motion seeks an Order pursuant to CPLR Article 9 certifying this action as a class
action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted in its entirety.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Beginning in or about July 2012 NY Boiler entered into contracts with NYCHA (the
“NYCHA Contracts” or “Public Work Contracts”) to perform work at various Public Works
Projects. [Ambinder Affirm Ex. B., NYCHA Contract Terms and Conditions]. The Public Works
Contracts generally called for NY Boiler to perform “boiler welding and repairs” [Ambinder
Affirm., Ex. D, E, and F]. NY Boiler was further required to pay Named Plaintiff and the putative
class at the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for the work they performed at the
NYCHA sites [see Ambinder Affirm. ¶ 3, Ex. B, NYCHA Contract Terms and Conditions §§ 43
8 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
through 47 [Bates 000050 – 000053] - E]. The sampling of 15 different Public Works Contracts
produced as part of pre-class certification discovery by Defendants or by NYCHA pursuant to
Judicial Subpoena (Ambinder Affirm., Ex. K), contain identical, or nearly identical, references
obligating the contractor to pay prevailing wages. In particular, Section 43 of the General Conditions
of the Public Works Contracts, entitled “Prevailing Wage Rates,” states, in pertinent part:
(a) The Contractor shall pay to all laborers and mechanics employed in the Work
not less than the wages prevailing in the locality of the Project, as predetermined by
the Secretary of Labor of the United States pursuant to the federal wage rate
requirements set forth at 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. (formerly known as the Davis-
Bacon Act) and other related laws and regulations. Notwithstanding prevailing
wage rates and supplemental benefits for trades or occupations stated in the
attached schedule, it is the Contractor's responsibility to become informed of, and
to pay, the appropriate prevailing wages.
see Ambinder Affirm, Ex. B., p. 25 [Bates No. 000050 – 51].
Further, the applicable schedules of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits
established by the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York City Comptroller (“Prevailing Wage
Schedules”) were annexed, or incorporated by reference, to most, if not all, of these Public Work
Contracts. [see Ambinder Affirm., Ex. C, Sampling of Prevailing Wage Schedules].
NY Boiler paid the putative class members approximately $19.00 to $27.00 per hour on the
NYCHA projects. Based on the tasks they performed, Plaintiffs allege that they should have been
classified as Boilermakers and Steam Fitters, classifications which under the 2017 Davis Bacon
Prevailing Wage Schedule annexed to the Public Works Contracts, required an hourly Boilermaker
wage of $ 55.23 plus approximately $43.00 per hour for supplemental benefits, which could be
provided either through payments to a union benefit plan, a private benefit plan, or as cash-in-kind
payments directly to the workers (see Ambinder Affirm., Ex. C, Sampling of Prevailing Wage
Schedules, p. 2 [Bates No. 001170]).
2
9 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
In support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs submit the affidavits and
exhibits of the Named Plaintiff, Lange Campbell (“Campbell Aff.”) and two other putative class
members, Omari Rodney and Vivian Clarke [see Ambinder Affirm., Exhibits G - I respectively].
Collectively, these affiants worked for NY Boiler from approximately 2013 through approximately
late 2018. (see Lange Aff. ¶ 4 [May 2017 – July 2018]; Rodney Aff. ¶ 4 [2013-2016 and from
September 2017- June 2018; Clarke Aff. ¶ 4 ([April 2018 – December 2018]).
During their employment with NY Boiler, Plaintiffs performed retubing, firebrick
installation, plate and patch welding, boiler section replacement, replacing end holes and manholes,
piping, and burning [see Lange Aff. ¶ 8; Rodney Aff. ¶ 8; Clarke Aff. ¶ 8][see also pictorial
documentation annexed to the Lange and Clarke affidavits evidencing work each affiant performed].
Plaintiffs allege that this work is properly classified under the trades of “Boilermaker” or
“Steamfitter,” rather than under the undefined trade classifications used by Defendants. see, e.g.
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 805.261-014, Boilermaker: “Assembles, analyzes defects in, and
repairs boilers, pressure vessels, tanks, and vats in field, following blueprints and using hand tools
and portable power tools and equipment… Bolts or arc-welds structures and sections together...
Aligns water tubes and connects and expands ends to drums and headers... Installs manholes,
handholes, valves, gauges, and feedwater connection in drums to complete assembly of water tube
boilers… Repairs boilers or tanks in field by unbolting or flame cutting defective sections or tubes,
straightening plates, using torch or jacks, installing new tubes, fitting and welding new sections and
replacing worn lugs on bolts.”
Named Plaintiff Lange and putative class members Omari Rodney, and Vivian Clarke
attested to the fact that they and the putative class members performed boiler-making or steam-
fitting work on NYCHA projects, yet they were all misclassified under much lower-paid
3
10 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
classifications such as “Service Fitter” (see Ex. G. Lange Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 and accompanying
earnings statement [attesting to the fact that Defendants paid him $16.35 to $19.00 per hour]; Ex F.
Rodney Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 [attesting to the fact that Defendants paid him approximately $18.00 per
hour]; Ex. I, Clarke Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 and accompanying earnings statement [attesting to the fact that
Defendants paid him approximately $27.00 per hour]).
Each affiant further attests that other NY Boiler workers performed the same or similar work
on the NYCHA Projects (see Lange Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 15- 20 different workers]; Rodney
Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 30 different workers]; Clarke Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 33 different
workers]).
Accordingly, on November 13, 2018 the Named Plaintiff instituted this class action on behalf
of himself and all other workers on the Public Work Contracts who were similarly underpaid in
order to recover monies to which they are legally entitled. [see Ex. A, Complaint]. Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class consisting of:
All individuals employed by NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and
DONALD BERGER. who furnished labor to Defendants on various New York City
Housing Authority and other public work projects in New York and who performed
various types of construction-related improvement work, including but not limited to
boiler construction, repairs, maintenance, metal work, tube rolling and cutting, tube
bending and all work incidental thereto, from July 2012 through the present. The
defined class shall not include any clerical, administrative, professional, or supervisory
employees.1
Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same alleged unlawful conduct of the Defendants, to wit,
New York Boiler’s failure to pay or ensure payment of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits
for all hours worked at the appropriate trade classification. As set forth below, and as already
recognized by numerous courts throughout New York, a class action is the most efficient, most
1 The proposed Notice of Class Action Lawsuit is annexed to the Ambinder Affirmation as Exhibit L.
4
11 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
effective and least costly method of resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the
instant motion be granted.
ARGUMENT
POINT I:
CERTIFICATION OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE
The Appellate Division, First Department characterizes class actions and particularly
prevailing wage class actions such as this as the “best method of adjudicating” wage disputes
(Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 11, 12 [1st Dep’t 1998]; see also
Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 138 A.D3d 546, 547 [1st Dep’t 2016][class actions are
the “appropriate method of adjudicating wage claims arising from an employer’s alleged practice of
underpaying employees,” and that “a class action is the ‘superior vehicle’ for resolving wage
disputes.” Stecko v. RLI Insurance Co., 121 A.D.3d 542, 543 [1st Dep’t 2014]). New York courts,
particularly the First Department, have repeatedly upheld the liberal class certification standard
applied to wage disputes. Weinstein, 138 A.D. at 547 (citing City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d
499, 508, 512, (2010); see also Stecko, 121 A.D.3d at 543-544 (recognizing that “CPLR 901
(a) should be broadly construed and that the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute
for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it”) Williams v. Air Service Corp., 121 A.D.3d
441, 442 [1st Dep’t 2014] (“a class action is superior to the prosecution of individualized claims in
an administrative proceeding (CPLR 901 [a] [5]), given the difference in litigation costs and the
modest damages to be recovered by each individual employee”); Dabrowski v. Abax Inc., 84 A.D.3d
633 (1st Dep’t 2011) (“the proposed class action is superior to the prosecution of individualized
claims in an administrative proceeding in view of the difference in litigation costs, the laborers’
likely insubstantial means, and the modest damages to be recovered by each individual laborer, if
anything”); Nawrocki v. Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 534 (1st Dep’t 2011) (“since the
5
12 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
damages allegedly suffered by an individual class are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of
prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court, we
find that a class action is the superior vehicle for resolving this wage dispute”); Kudinov v. Kel-Tech
Construction, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481 (1st Dep’t 2009); Galdamez v. Biordi Construction Corp., 2006
WL 2969651 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2006) (Ling-Cohan, J.), aff’d 50 A.D.3d 357 (1st Dep’t 2008);
Brandy v. Canea Mare Contracting, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 512 (2d Dep’t 2006); Wilder v. May
Department Stores Company, 23 A.D.3d 646, 649 (2d Dep’t 2005) (reversing the lower court’s
denial of class certification to a group of workers, holding that “CPLR article 9, which authorizes
and sets forth the criteria to be considered in granting class action certification, is to be liberally
construed. We have previously held that any error should be resolved in favor of allowing the class
action”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 318 (2d
Dep’t 2005); Ortiz v. J.P. Jack Corp., 286 A.D.2d 671 (2d Dep’t 2001). In all of the above-
mentioned cases, the courts found that all requirements of Sections 901 and 902 were easily met by
workers alleging underpayment of wages, and certified classes of workers with regularity.
In determining whether an action should proceed as a class action, “the facts as alleged in the
complaint are accepted as true.” Dabrowski v. Abax, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3507 *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
2010), aff’d, 84 A.D.3d 633 [1st Dep’t 2011]). “While it is appropriate in determining whether an
action should proceed as a class action to consider whether a claim has merit, this inquiry is limited,
and such threshold determination is not intended to be a substitute for summary judgment or trial.”
(Kudinov, 65 A.D.3d at 482 [internal citations and punctuation omitted]). Class action certification is
thus appropriate where the evidence minimally shows the action is not a sham. (Weinstein, 138
A.D.3d at 547 [citing Kudinov v Kel-Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481, 482 [1st Dep’t 2009]];
6
13 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
Brandon v. Chefetz, 106 A.D.2d 162, 168 [1st Dep’t 1985]; Maor v. One Fifty Seven Corp., 2018
N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1333, *8 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2018]).
New York State courts have long recognized that CPLR article 9 was intended by the
legislature to be broadly construed as a “liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation
which preceded it.” Stecko, 121 A.D.3d at 543-44 (quoting City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d
499, 509 (2010); see also Juarez. v. U.S.A. Roofing Co. Corp., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2246, at *7-
8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2017) (“In exercising discretion, a court must be mindful of the First
Department’s holding that the class certification statute should be liberally construed.” [quoting
Kudinov, 65 A.D. at 481]). For the same reasons this motion has been so routinely granted in this
jurisdiction and elsewhere, it should also be granted here.
A. CPLR § 901 IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
CPLR § 901(a) provides that one or more members of a class may sue as representative
parties on behalf of a class if:
1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members whether otherwise required or
permitted is impracticable [“numerosity”];
2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members [“predominance”];
3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class [“typicality”];
4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;
and
5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy [“superiority”].
It is well established that, in deciding whether to certify a class, “a court must be mindful of
[the Appellate Division’s] holding that the class certification statute should be liberally construed”
(Kudinov, 65 A.D.3d, at 481 [citing Englade v. Harper Collins Publs., Inc., 289 A.D.2d 159, 159
7
14 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
[1st Dep’t 2001]); Pruitt, 167 A.D.2d 14, 21 [1st Dep’t 1991]) (“[c]ourts have recognized that the
criteria set forth in CPLR 901 (a) “should be broadly construed not only because of the general
command for liberal construction of all CPLR sections (see CPLR 104), but also because it is
apparent that the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action
legislation which preceded it.” Maul, 14 N.Y.3d at 509 (quoting Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.,
78 A.D.2d 83, 90-92 (2d Dep’t 1980)); see also Maor v. One Fifty Sevens Corp., 2018 N.Y. Misc.
LEXIS 1333* (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2018); Galdamez, 2006 WL 2969651 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2006),
aff’d 855 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1st Dep’t 2008); Pajaczek v. Cema Construction Corp., 2008 N.Y. Misc.
LEXIS 701 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008) (citing Brandon, 106 A.D.2d 162)). The First Department has
explicitly rejected the more restrictive holdings of the Federal Courts when interpreting the
requirements for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “We note that
the motion court was not required to apply the ‘rigorous analysis’ standard utilized by the federal
courts in addressing class certification motions under rule 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, given this Court’s recognition that CPLR 901 (a) ‘should be broadly construed’ and that
‘the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation
which preceded it.” Stecko, 121 A.D.3d 542, 543-44 (quoting Maul, 14 N.Y.3d at 509 (2010)).
The liberal, flexible scheme of Article 9 was enacted to replace the previously rigid and
undesirable restrictions that existed under former law. Consistent with this recognition, the First
Department in Brandon v. Chefetz remarked:
In his scholarly and persuasive opinion in Friar v. Vanguard Holding [78 A.D.2d at 91],
Justice Lazer stated that the criteria for class certification should be broadly construed
not only because of the general command for liberal construction of all CPLR sections
(see CPLR 104), but also because it is apparent that the Legislature intended article 9 to
be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it.
Brandon, 106 A.D.2d at 168.
8
15 of 32
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020
As demonstrated below, the instant action clearly meets the requirements for class
certification and any doubts must be resolved in favor of class certification. Hurrell-Harring v. State
of N.Y., 81 A.D.3d 69, 72 (3d Dep’t 2011) (“any error, if there is to be one, should be . . . in favor of
allowing the c
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Index No.: 160513/2018 Plaintiffs, - against - NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. James E. Murphy, Esq. Rachel R. Feingold, Esq. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, New York 10004 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class i 1 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 POINT I: CERTIFICATION OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE ..........................................5 A. CPLR § 901 IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED ........................................................7 B. PREVAILING WAGE CLASS ACTIONS ARE THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR TRADE MISCLASSIFICATION CASES SUCH AS THIS...............................................9 C. THIS ACTION SATISFIES ALL THE PREREQUISITES OF SECTION 901 ..............10 (1) The Class Is So Numerous That Joinder of All Members is Impracticable...........11 (2) The Questions of Law and Fact Common to The Class Predominate Over Questions Affecting Only Individual Class Members ..........................................13 (i) The Claims of Each Member of the Putative Class Arise from a Common Wrong ........................................................................................................13 (ii) Predominance .............................................................................................14 (iii) Predominance and Proof of Liability .........................................................17 (3) The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the Putative Class ...18 (4) The Named Plaintiff Will Fairly And Adequately Protect the Interests of The Class .......................................................................................................................20 (5) A Class Action Is Superior to Other Available Methods.......................................22 C. CONSIDERATION OF § 902 FACTORS SUPPORTS A DETERMINATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................24 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25 ii 2 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d 179 (1st Dep’t 1998) ..................................................................................................19 Alfaro v. Vardaris Tech, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 436 (1st Dep’t 2010) ....................................................................................................21 Andrejuk v. National Environmental Safety Co. Inc., 94 Civ. 4638 (S.D.N.Y.) ................................................................................................................21 Banasiak v. Fox Indus., Ltd., 2016 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Mar. 23, 2016)........................................................10, 14 Barone v. Safway Steel Products, Inc., 2005 WL 2009882 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)..............................................................................................21 Borden v. 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P., 24 N.Y.3d 382 (2014) ........................................................................................................12, 17, 20 Brandon v. Chefetz, 106 A.D.2d 162 (1st Dep’t 1985) .......................................................................................... passim Brandy v. Canea Mare Contracting, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 512 (2d Dep’t 2006) .................................................................................................6, 21 Brunson v. City of New York, 94 Civ. 4507 (S.D.N.Y.) ................................................................................................................21 Cardona v. Maramount Corp., 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 12, 2009) ................................................16, 21 City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 508, 512, (2010) ......................................................................................5, 7, 8, 15 Cox v. Nap Construction Company, Inc., Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2004, aff’d, 10 N.Y.3d 592 (2008) ...................................................................21 Dabrowski v. ABAX Incorporated, 2008 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 10248, (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Sep. 26, 2008), aff’d 64 A.D.3d 426 (1st Dept. 2009) ...................................................................................................................................9, 17, 21 Dabrowski v. Abax, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3507 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 84 A.D.3d 633 (1st Dep’t 2011) ...................................................................................................................................... passim iii 3 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock& Repair Co., Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 530 (2013) ....................................................................................................................21 Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 45 Misc. 3d 362 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 9, 2013) ..............................................................................17 Englade v. Harper Collins Publs., Inc., 289 A.D.2d 159 (1st Dep’t 2001) ..............................................................................................7, 17 Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83 (2d Dep’t 1980) ............................................................................................... passim Galdamez v. Biordi Constr. Corp., 13 Misc. 3d 1224A (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. June 8 2006), aff’d 50 A.D.3d 357 (Apr. 8, 2008) .. passim Geiger v. Amer. Tobacco Co., 181 Misc.2d 875 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty 1999) ......................................................................13 Gilman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 404 N.Y.S.2d 258, 93 Misc.2d 941 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 1978) .......................................................24 Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129 (2d Dep’t 2008) .....................................................................................................17 Gonzalez v. Nicholas Zito Racing Stable, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27598 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2008) .............................................................21 Guzman v. VLM, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15821 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2008) ...............................................................21 Hoffman v. New York Stone Co., Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 29, 2006 ...................................................................................................21 Hurrell-Harring v. State of N.Y., 81 A.D.3d 69 (3d Dep’t 2011) .........................................................................................................9 Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, 239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ...................................................................................................14 Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 318 (2d Dep’t 2005) .......................................................................................................6 Juarez. v. U.S.A. Roofing Co. Corp., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2246 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2017).........................................7, 11, 14, 19 iv 4 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 Kopacz v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2011 ..................................................................................................................21 Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481 (1st Dep’t 2009) ............................................................................................ passim Lamarca v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 55 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dep’t 2008) ....................................................................................................22 Lewis v. Hallen Construction Co., Inc., 2019 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 2170 (Sup. Ct.N.Y.Co. May 3, 2019) ......................................9, 10, 12, 14 Maor v. One Fifty Seven Corp., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1333 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2018) ...................................................7, 8 Matter of Stewart v. Roberts, 163 A.D.3d 89 (3d Dept 2018) ......................................................................................................12 Mimnorm Realty Corp. v. Sunrise Fed’l. Savings and Loan Ass’n., 83 A.D.2d 936 (2d Dep’t 1981), app. dismissed, 57 N.Y.2d 859, reargument denied, 58 N.Y.2d 730 (1982) ......................................................................................................................................15 Mohamed v. Glob. Sec. Assocs., LLC, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1565 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2016) .........................................12, 13, 15 Morris v. Alle Processing, Corp., E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2009 .................................................................................................................21 Nawrocki v. Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 534 (1st Dep’t 2011) ............................................................................................ passim Ortiz v. J.P. Jack Corp., 286 A.D.2d 671 (2d Dep’t 2001) .....................................................................................................6 Pajaczek v. Cema Construction Corp., 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 701 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008) ........................................................ passim Papantoniou v. V. Barile Inc., 2015 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 4236, (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. Nov. 18, 2015) .......................................10, 14, 21 Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 11 (1st Dep’t 1998) ............................................................................................ passim Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 420 (1st Dep’t 2010) ..............................................................................................17, 19 v 5 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 Pruitt v. Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc., 167 A.D.2d 14 (1st Dep’t 1991) ............................................................................................ passim Rodriguez v. Apple Builders & Renovators, Inc., Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Nov. 1, 2006 .....................................................................................................21 Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 870 (1976) ...........................................................13 Simon v. Cunard Line, 75 A.D.2d 283 ................................................................................................................................16 Smith v. Atlas International Tours, et al., 80 A.D.2d 762 (1st Dep’t 1981) ....................................................................................................12 Stecko v. RLI Insurance Co., 121 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dep’t 2014) .......................................................................................... passim Sullivan v. International Fidelity Co., 225 A.D.2d 128, 679 N.Y.S.2d 391 (1st Dep’t 1998) ...................................................................21 Sullivan v. True Plumbing and Heating Corp., et al., Sup Ct. N.Y. Co. 1997 ...................................................................................................................21 Velasquez v. Sunstone Red Oak, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 32536(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty, Aug. 21, 2018) ............................16 Velez v. Majik Cleaning Serv., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 709 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2005) ..................................................................21 Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 138 A.D3d 546 (1st Dep’t 2016) .......................................................................................... passim Wilder v. May Department Stores Company, 23 A.D.3d 646 (2d Dep’t 2005) .......................................................................................................6 Williams v. Air Serve Corporation, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2243 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2013) aff’d 121 A.D.3d ...................11, 22 Williams v. Air Service Corp., 121 A.D.3d 441 (1st Dep’t 2014) .......................................................................................... passim Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op 30061(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2020) .......................................................12 vi 6 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 26, 2005 ...................................................................................................21 STATUTES Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ......................................................................................8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a)(3) ...........................................................................18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)..................................................................................8 CPLR § 104......................................................................................................................................8 CPLR § 901............................................................................................................................ passim CPLR § 901(a) ...................................................................................................................5, 7, 8, 17 CPLR § 901(a)(1) ..........................................................................................................................11 CPLR § 901(a)(3) .........................................................................................................................18 CPLR § 901(a)(4) .........................................................................................................................20 CPLR § 901(a)(5) ......................................................................................................................5, 22 CPLR § 902..........................................................................................................................6, 11, 24 CPLR § 902(1) ...............................................................................................................................24 CPLR § 902(2) ...............................................................................................................................25 CPLR § 902(3) ...............................................................................................................................24 CPLR § 902(4) ...............................................................................................................................25 CPLR § 902(5) ...............................................................................................................................25 Labor Law § 220 ........................................................................................................................9, 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES 2 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, N.Y. Civ. Practice, § 901.09 ............................................................18 3 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, N.Y. Civil Practice § 901.11 ............................................................13 vii 7 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Lange Campbell (“Named Plaintiff”) and a putative class of individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) who furnished labor to Defendants New York Boiler, Inc., Richard Berger, and Donald Berger (collectively “NY Boiler” or “Defendants”) to recover wages and benefits which Named Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) projects in New York (hereinafter referred to as the “NYCHA Projects” or “Public Works Projects”). [A true and accurate copy of the Summons and Complaint is annexed to the Affirmation of Lloyd Ambinder (“Ambinder Affirm.”) as Exhibit A]. Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant NY Boiler misclassified the putative class members under the “Boiler Service Person” and “Service Fitter” job classifications which provided far less financial compensation for the work they performed than the appropriate classifications of Boilermaker and Steamfitter. The instant motion seeks an Order pursuant to CPLR Article 9 certifying this action as a class action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted in its entirety. STATEMENT OF FACTS Beginning in or about July 2012 NY Boiler entered into contracts with NYCHA (the “NYCHA Contracts” or “Public Work Contracts”) to perform work at various Public Works Projects. [Ambinder Affirm Ex. B., NYCHA Contract Terms and Conditions]. The Public Works Contracts generally called for NY Boiler to perform “boiler welding and repairs” [Ambinder Affirm., Ex. D, E, and F]. NY Boiler was further required to pay Named Plaintiff and the putative class at the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for the work they performed at the NYCHA sites [see Ambinder Affirm. ¶ 3, Ex. B, NYCHA Contract Terms and Conditions §§ 43 8 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 through 47 [Bates 000050 – 000053] - E]. The sampling of 15 different Public Works Contracts produced as part of pre-class certification discovery by Defendants or by NYCHA pursuant to Judicial Subpoena (Ambinder Affirm., Ex. K), contain identical, or nearly identical, references obligating the contractor to pay prevailing wages. In particular, Section 43 of the General Conditions of the Public Works Contracts, entitled “Prevailing Wage Rates,” states, in pertinent part: (a) The Contractor shall pay to all laborers and mechanics employed in the Work not less than the wages prevailing in the locality of the Project, as predetermined by the Secretary of Labor of the United States pursuant to the federal wage rate requirements set forth at 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. (formerly known as the Davis- Bacon Act) and other related laws and regulations. Notwithstanding prevailing wage rates and supplemental benefits for trades or occupations stated in the attached schedule, it is the Contractor's responsibility to become informed of, and to pay, the appropriate prevailing wages. see Ambinder Affirm, Ex. B., p. 25 [Bates No. 000050 – 51]. Further, the applicable schedules of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits established by the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York City Comptroller (“Prevailing Wage Schedules”) were annexed, or incorporated by reference, to most, if not all, of these Public Work Contracts. [see Ambinder Affirm., Ex. C, Sampling of Prevailing Wage Schedules]. NY Boiler paid the putative class members approximately $19.00 to $27.00 per hour on the NYCHA projects. Based on the tasks they performed, Plaintiffs allege that they should have been classified as Boilermakers and Steam Fitters, classifications which under the 2017 Davis Bacon Prevailing Wage Schedule annexed to the Public Works Contracts, required an hourly Boilermaker wage of $ 55.23 plus approximately $43.00 per hour for supplemental benefits, which could be provided either through payments to a union benefit plan, a private benefit plan, or as cash-in-kind payments directly to the workers (see Ambinder Affirm., Ex. C, Sampling of Prevailing Wage Schedules, p. 2 [Bates No. 001170]). 2 9 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 In support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs submit the affidavits and exhibits of the Named Plaintiff, Lange Campbell (“Campbell Aff.”) and two other putative class members, Omari Rodney and Vivian Clarke [see Ambinder Affirm., Exhibits G - I respectively]. Collectively, these affiants worked for NY Boiler from approximately 2013 through approximately late 2018. (see Lange Aff. ¶ 4 [May 2017 – July 2018]; Rodney Aff. ¶ 4 [2013-2016 and from September 2017- June 2018; Clarke Aff. ¶ 4 ([April 2018 – December 2018]). During their employment with NY Boiler, Plaintiffs performed retubing, firebrick installation, plate and patch welding, boiler section replacement, replacing end holes and manholes, piping, and burning [see Lange Aff. ¶ 8; Rodney Aff. ¶ 8; Clarke Aff. ¶ 8][see also pictorial documentation annexed to the Lange and Clarke affidavits evidencing work each affiant performed]. Plaintiffs allege that this work is properly classified under the trades of “Boilermaker” or “Steamfitter,” rather than under the undefined trade classifications used by Defendants. see, e.g. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 805.261-014, Boilermaker: “Assembles, analyzes defects in, and repairs boilers, pressure vessels, tanks, and vats in field, following blueprints and using hand tools and portable power tools and equipment… Bolts or arc-welds structures and sections together... Aligns water tubes and connects and expands ends to drums and headers... Installs manholes, handholes, valves, gauges, and feedwater connection in drums to complete assembly of water tube boilers… Repairs boilers or tanks in field by unbolting or flame cutting defective sections or tubes, straightening plates, using torch or jacks, installing new tubes, fitting and welding new sections and replacing worn lugs on bolts.” Named Plaintiff Lange and putative class members Omari Rodney, and Vivian Clarke attested to the fact that they and the putative class members performed boiler-making or steam- fitting work on NYCHA projects, yet they were all misclassified under much lower-paid 3 10 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 classifications such as “Service Fitter” (see Ex. G. Lange Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 and accompanying earnings statement [attesting to the fact that Defendants paid him $16.35 to $19.00 per hour]; Ex F. Rodney Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 [attesting to the fact that Defendants paid him approximately $18.00 per hour]; Ex. I, Clarke Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12 and accompanying earnings statement [attesting to the fact that Defendants paid him approximately $27.00 per hour]). Each affiant further attests that other NY Boiler workers performed the same or similar work on the NYCHA Projects (see Lange Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 15- 20 different workers]; Rodney Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 30 different workers]; Clarke Aff. ¶ 7 [recalling at least 33 different workers]). Accordingly, on November 13, 2018 the Named Plaintiff instituted this class action on behalf of himself and all other workers on the Public Work Contracts who were similarly underpaid in order to recover monies to which they are legally entitled. [see Ex. A, Complaint]. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of: All individuals employed by NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER. who furnished labor to Defendants on various New York City Housing Authority and other public work projects in New York and who performed various types of construction-related improvement work, including but not limited to boiler construction, repairs, maintenance, metal work, tube rolling and cutting, tube bending and all work incidental thereto, from July 2012 through the present. The defined class shall not include any clerical, administrative, professional, or supervisory employees.1 Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same alleged unlawful conduct of the Defendants, to wit, New York Boiler’s failure to pay or ensure payment of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for all hours worked at the appropriate trade classification. As set forth below, and as already recognized by numerous courts throughout New York, a class action is the most efficient, most 1 The proposed Notice of Class Action Lawsuit is annexed to the Ambinder Affirmation as Exhibit L. 4 11 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 effective and least costly method of resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the instant motion be granted. ARGUMENT POINT I: CERTIFICATION OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE The Appellate Division, First Department characterizes class actions and particularly prevailing wage class actions such as this as the “best method of adjudicating” wage disputes (Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 11, 12 [1st Dep’t 1998]; see also Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 138 A.D3d 546, 547 [1st Dep’t 2016][class actions are the “appropriate method of adjudicating wage claims arising from an employer’s alleged practice of underpaying employees,” and that “a class action is the ‘superior vehicle’ for resolving wage disputes.” Stecko v. RLI Insurance Co., 121 A.D.3d 542, 543 [1st Dep’t 2014]). New York courts, particularly the First Department, have repeatedly upheld the liberal class certification standard applied to wage disputes. Weinstein, 138 A.D. at 547 (citing City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 508, 512, (2010); see also Stecko, 121 A.D.3d at 543-544 (recognizing that “CPLR 901 (a) should be broadly construed and that the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it”) Williams v. Air Service Corp., 121 A.D.3d 441, 442 [1st Dep’t 2014] (“a class action is superior to the prosecution of individualized claims in an administrative proceeding (CPLR 901 [a] [5]), given the difference in litigation costs and the modest damages to be recovered by each individual employee”); Dabrowski v. Abax Inc., 84 A.D.3d 633 (1st Dep’t 2011) (“the proposed class action is superior to the prosecution of individualized claims in an administrative proceeding in view of the difference in litigation costs, the laborers’ likely insubstantial means, and the modest damages to be recovered by each individual laborer, if anything”); Nawrocki v. Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 534 (1st Dep’t 2011) (“since the 5 12 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 damages allegedly suffered by an individual class are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court, we find that a class action is the superior vehicle for resolving this wage dispute”); Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481 (1st Dep’t 2009); Galdamez v. Biordi Construction Corp., 2006 WL 2969651 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2006) (Ling-Cohan, J.), aff’d 50 A.D.3d 357 (1st Dep’t 2008); Brandy v. Canea Mare Contracting, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 512 (2d Dep’t 2006); Wilder v. May Department Stores Company, 23 A.D.3d 646, 649 (2d Dep’t 2005) (reversing the lower court’s denial of class certification to a group of workers, holding that “CPLR article 9, which authorizes and sets forth the criteria to be considered in granting class action certification, is to be liberally construed. We have previously held that any error should be resolved in favor of allowing the class action”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 318 (2d Dep’t 2005); Ortiz v. J.P. Jack Corp., 286 A.D.2d 671 (2d Dep’t 2001). In all of the above- mentioned cases, the courts found that all requirements of Sections 901 and 902 were easily met by workers alleging underpayment of wages, and certified classes of workers with regularity. In determining whether an action should proceed as a class action, “the facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true.” Dabrowski v. Abax, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3507 *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 84 A.D.3d 633 [1st Dep’t 2011]). “While it is appropriate in determining whether an action should proceed as a class action to consider whether a claim has merit, this inquiry is limited, and such threshold determination is not intended to be a substitute for summary judgment or trial.” (Kudinov, 65 A.D.3d at 482 [internal citations and punctuation omitted]). Class action certification is thus appropriate where the evidence minimally shows the action is not a sham. (Weinstein, 138 A.D.3d at 547 [citing Kudinov v Kel-Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481, 482 [1st Dep’t 2009]]; 6 13 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 Brandon v. Chefetz, 106 A.D.2d 162, 168 [1st Dep’t 1985]; Maor v. One Fifty Seven Corp., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1333, *8 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2018]). New York State courts have long recognized that CPLR article 9 was intended by the legislature to be broadly construed as a “liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it.” Stecko, 121 A.D.3d at 543-44 (quoting City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 509 (2010); see also Juarez. v. U.S.A. Roofing Co. Corp., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2246, at *7- 8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2017) (“In exercising discretion, a court must be mindful of the First Department’s holding that the class certification statute should be liberally construed.” [quoting Kudinov, 65 A.D. at 481]). For the same reasons this motion has been so routinely granted in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, it should also be granted here. A. CPLR § 901 IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED CPLR § 901(a) provides that one or more members of a class may sue as representative parties on behalf of a class if: 1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members whether otherwise required or permitted is impracticable [“numerosity”]; 2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members [“predominance”]; 3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [“typicality”]; 4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and 5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy [“superiority”]. It is well established that, in deciding whether to certify a class, “a court must be mindful of [the Appellate Division’s] holding that the class certification statute should be liberally construed” (Kudinov, 65 A.D.3d, at 481 [citing Englade v. Harper Collins Publs., Inc., 289 A.D.2d 159, 159 7 14 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 [1st Dep’t 2001]); Pruitt, 167 A.D.2d 14, 21 [1st Dep’t 1991]) (“[c]ourts have recognized that the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 (a) “should be broadly construed not only because of the general command for liberal construction of all CPLR sections (see CPLR 104), but also because it is apparent that the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it.” Maul, 14 N.Y.3d at 509 (quoting Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 90-92 (2d Dep’t 1980)); see also Maor v. One Fifty Sevens Corp., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1333* (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2018); Galdamez, 2006 WL 2969651 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2006), aff’d 855 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1st Dep’t 2008); Pajaczek v. Cema Construction Corp., 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 701 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008) (citing Brandon, 106 A.D.2d 162)). The First Department has explicitly rejected the more restrictive holdings of the Federal Courts when interpreting the requirements for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “We note that the motion court was not required to apply the ‘rigorous analysis’ standard utilized by the federal courts in addressing class certification motions under rule 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, given this Court’s recognition that CPLR 901 (a) ‘should be broadly construed’ and that ‘the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it.” Stecko, 121 A.D.3d 542, 543-44 (quoting Maul, 14 N.Y.3d at 509 (2010)). The liberal, flexible scheme of Article 9 was enacted to replace the previously rigid and undesirable restrictions that existed under former law. Consistent with this recognition, the First Department in Brandon v. Chefetz remarked: In his scholarly and persuasive opinion in Friar v. Vanguard Holding [78 A.D.2d at 91], Justice Lazer stated that the criteria for class certification should be broadly construed not only because of the general command for liberal construction of all CPLR sections (see CPLR 104), but also because it is apparent that the Legislature intended article 9 to be a liberal substitute for the narrow class action legislation which preceded it. Brandon, 106 A.D.2d at 168. 8 15 of 32 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2020 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2020 As demonstrated below, the instant action clearly meets the requirements for class certification and any doubts must be resolved in favor of class certification. Hurrell-Harring v. State of N.Y., 81 A.D.3d 69, 72 (3d Dep’t 2011) (“any error, if there is to be one, should be . . . in favor of allowing the c