Medrano v Mastro Concrete, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 30740(U) April 25, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 151285/2016 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
18
Embed
Medrano v Mastro Concrete, Inc.Mastronardi Bros., Inc., and any other related or affiliated entities, seek to recover from defendants as damages earned but unpaid overtime compensation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Medrano v Mastro Concrete, Inc.2018 NY Slip Op 30740(U)
April 25, 2018Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 151285/2016Judge: Kathryn E. Freed
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY SlipOp 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the NewYork State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for officialpublication.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2018
1 of 17
---------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 2 -----------------------------------x RAFAEL MEDRANO and WILLIAM SALVATIERRA, for themselves and on behalf of others employed by Defendants,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
MASTRO CONCRETE, INC., MELROSE BUILDING MATERIALS CORP., MASTRO READY MIX, INC., MASTRONARDI BROS, INC., and any other related or affiliated entities,
Defendants. -----------------------------------x
Kathryn E. Freed, J.S.C.:
DECISION AND ORDER
Index No. 151285/2016
Motion Sequence No. 001
Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers
considered in review of this motion for class certification,
numbered 15 through 26 and 29 through 35 by the New York State
Courts Electronic Filing System:
PAPERS
Notice of Motion, Aff. in Support with Exhibits Annexed, and Memorandum of Law
Aff. in Opposition with Exhibits Annexed and Memorandum of Law
Reply Memorandum of Law
NUMBERED
Nos. 15-26
Nos. 29-33
Nos. 34-35
Upon the foregoing cited papers, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is decided as follows:
Scanned to New York EF on 4/¥fi8
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2018
2 of 17
Plaintiffs Rafael Medrano and William Salvatierra, in their
complaint dated February 17, 2016, for themselves and on behalf
of others employed by defendants Mastro Concrete, Inc., Melrose
Building Materials Corp., Mastro Ready Mix, Inc., and
Mastronardi Bros., Inc., and any other related or affiliated
entities, seek to recover from defendants as damages earned but
unpaid overtime compensation allegedly owed to them, under
Sections 190 et seq. and 663 of New York's Labor Law and 12
NYCRR 142-2.2.
In motion sequence number 001, plaintiffs move, pursuant to
CPLR 901, to certify this action as a class action for:
"All individuals employed by Mastro Concrete, Inc., Melrose Building Materials Corp., and/or Mastro. Ready Mix, Inc., who performed work related to their concrete manufacturing, production, distribution and delivery business throughout New York between February 2010 and the present, including but not limited to mechanics, drivers, batchers and other yard workers (the 'Putative Class' or the 'Class'). The defined class shall not include any manager, corporate officer, director, clerical or office workers."
(Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of motion for class
certification [plaintiffs' memorandum], at l]) .1
The complaint, at ~ 1, identifies all four defendants as plaintiffs' employers. In plaintiffs' memorandum, at 1, however, plaintiffs identify defendants Mastro Concrete, Inc., Melrose Building Materials Corp, and Mastro Ready Mix, Inc. as the "Employer Defendants," and "Defendants" as the Employer Defendants plus Mastronardi Bros., Inc.
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2018
3 of 17
BACKGROUND
According to the complaint, defendants are companies owned
and operated by members of the Mastronardi family, which jointly
employed plaintiffs and members of the putative class during the
period from February 2010 to the present (see complaint ~~ 2,
19-23).
Defendants employed plaintiff Rafael Medrano as a mechanic
from around June 2009 through December 2015 (id. ~ 29). Mr.
Medrano typically worked six days a week, Monday through
Saturday, from about 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., and was paid $35
an hour for his first forty hours each week (id. ~~ 30-31). Mr.
Medrano would usually receive about $700 in cash for overtime,
i.e., time he worked over and above 40 hours (id. ~ 32). The
cash payments Mr. Medrano received for overtime, however, did
not equal the amount he would have received had he been paid one
and a half times his regular rate (id. ~33).
Plaintiff William· Salvatierra worked for defendants as a
mechanic, machine operator, concrete truck driver, and batcher
from about 2000 through March 2015 (id. ~ 34). Mr. Salvatierra
typically worked six days a week, Monday through Saturday, from
about 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. (id. ~ 35). Plaintiffs
allege Mr. Salvatierra was paid by check about $20.00. to $23.00
per hour for the first 40 hours he worked each week (id. ~ 36).
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2018
4 of 17
He would also receive cash for the work he performed beyond 40
hours, usually in the amount of $400 (id. ~ 37). The cash
payments Mr. Salvatierra received for overtime, however, did not
equal the amount he would have received hap he been paid one and
a half times his regular rate of pay for those hours (id. ~ 38).
Plaintiffs allege that their coworkers also regularly
worked six out of seven days, and were paid by check for their
first 40 hours each week (id. ~ 40). Plaintiffs also assert
that their coworkers received cash payments for overtime and
that those payments did not equal the amounts they would have
received had they been paid one and a half times their regular
rates of pay for overtime (id.).
Plaintiffs contend that, by failing to pay all the overtime
compensation due them and the other members of the putative
class, defendants violated Labor Law Section 663 and 12 NYCRR
142-2.2. 2
2 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 states, in part, that "[a]n employer shall pay an employee for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate. "
Labor Law§ 663(1) provides, in part, that "[i]f any employee is paid by his or her employer less than the wage to which he or she is entitled under the provisions of this . article, he or she shall recover in a civil action the amount of any such underpayments, together with costs all reasonable attorney's fees, prejudgment interest as required under the civil practice law and rules, and unless the employer proves a good faith basis to believe that its underpayment of wages was in compliance with the law, an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the total of such underpayments found to be due."
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2018
5 of 17
Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on August 5,
2016, denying plaintiffs' allegations~
Plaintiffs rely on the deposition testimony of Mario
Mastronardi,3 their own deposition transcripts and affidavits,
and the affidavits of other putative class members on this
motion. On this evidence, plaintiffs assert that they and their
similarly situated coworkers were denied full payment of
overtime, resulting from defendants' continuing and pervasive
practices of intentionally undercounting and underreporting the
overtime hours they worked, and by defendants' paying them less
than the overtime rate of one and a half times their regular pay
rate (see plaintiffs' memorandum at 4-7).
Defendants deny these assertions and contend that their
failure to "keep accurate [time] records. . does not
necessarily imply. . that this practice resulted in the
failure to pay overtime" (defendants' memorandum of law in
opposition to certification [defendants' memorandum] at 1).
STANDARDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ·
"A class action in this state must satisfy the
prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy
of representation and superiority" (Weinberg v Hertz Corp., 116
3 Mr. Mastronardi ·is either president, vice president or secretary of each of the defendants in this action.
[* 5]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2018 04:15 PM INDEX NO. 151285/2016