FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/17/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2018

Transcription

1

2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Defendant Project O.H.R. (Office for Homecare Referral) ("OHR") is a New York nonprofit organization with a principal place of business located at 80 Maiden Lane, 2 l" Floor, New York, New York. 4. Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to NYLL 198 and 663. None of the exceptions to jurisdiction apply. 6. Venue is proper in this Court because the principal place of business is located in New York County. ALLEGATION_S 7. Plaintiff brings New York Labor Law claims alleging that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage for each hour of work that they required and permitted her to perform; Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread of hours pay; and Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at a wage rate of one and a half times the basic minimum hourly rate, within the meaning of the New York Labor Law Article 6 and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Liliya Dubnova ("Dubnova" or "Plaintiff") is an adult individual who resides at 2985 Avenue R, Brooklyn, NY At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law Article 6, 190(2) and 651(5). 2

3 10. Defendant Project OHR is a nonprofit organization that provides home health care services to disabled, frail, and elderly individuals who qualify for government assistance in New York City. The Defendant is a party to certain agreements within the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") to provide home attendant services to New York City residents. HRA refers Medicaid-eligible individuals to OHR and funds OHR's operations. Many OHR clients require round-the-clock care. 11. Defendants are located at 120 Broadway, Suite 7167, New York, NY OHR is wholly owned by Defendant Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty ("Met Council"). 13. Defendant D'vorah Kohn ("Kohn") is the Executive Director of OHR, and was responsible for setting the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment, as well as having the authority to hire and fire OHR's employees. As such she is an "employer" within the meaning of the New York Labor Law. 14. Kohn is jointly employed by Defendant Met Council, and is listed in Met Council's annual report as "Met Council Senior Staff." 15. Defendant Met Council is a not for profit corporation organized under the laws of New York State. Met Council does business within the City of and State of New York and maintains its principal place of business at 120 Broadway, 7th FlOOr, New York, New York. Met Council runs a variety of social programs in the New York City area. 16. Project OHR, Met Council and Kohn operate as part of a single integrated enterprise that employed and/or jointly employed Plaintiffs. 17. operations are interrelated and unified. 3

4 18. At all relevant times, Met Council exercised dominion and control over Project OHR, and that dominion and control was used to commit the violations outlined herein. 19. For example, the finances of OHR are included in the Met Council's annual audited financial statement. Met Council selects OHR's "governing authority," designates OHR's management, significantly influences OHR's operations, and is accountable for OHR's fiscal matters. 20. In addition, a single website connects Defendants Project OHR and Metropolitan Council. That website, identifies Metropolitan Council as a business entity that operates various charity programs, including "Home Care" programs. The website describes Defendant OHR as one of "our two Medicaid Home Care agencies." At all relevant times, Defendants were Plaintiff's joint employers within the meaning of the NYLL. 22. Defendants had the right to control, and in fact did control, the hours, hourly pay, assignments and schedule of Plaintiffs. STATEMENT OF FACTS 23. Plaintiff was at all relevant times a home attendant employed by Defendants to provide personal home health care and assistance to a single patient. 24. Dubnova worked for Defendants for approximately twenty-one years until May 2015, when her case was transferred to another agency. 4

5 25. As employee, Plaintiff provided services to her patient, including, but not limited to: personal care services, such as assistance with walking, bathing, dressing, personal grooming, meal preparation, and feeding and toileting. 26. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked 24-hour shifts four to six days a week until 2015, when OHR limited her to four 24-hour shifts a week. 27. The 24-hour shifts required her to stay overnight at her patient's home. She was not permitted to leave him at any time during her shift, and had to provide care at any time it was needed, day or night. 28. Plaintiff did not live at the home of clients but instead maintained her own residence. In addition, Plaintiff did not live in the home of her employer, since her patient was not her employer. 29. At all relevant times, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat rate for a full 24 hour shift. In the last year of Plaintiff's employment, Project OHR paid her $ for weekend 24 hour shifts, or $6.26 per hour, and $ for weekday 24 hour shifts, or $5.70 per hour. This is less than the minimum wage. 30. Plaintiff's client required extensive care at night. He often woke up on an hourly basis throughout the night, generally preventing Plaintiff from getting even two uninterrupted hours of sleep. 31. Plaintiff was never afforded time to herself for meals, as she had to supervise her patient constantly. 32. Plaintiff's hours regularly exceeded 40 hours in a seven day workweek as a result of the 24 hour round-the-clock care she provided clients. In fact, as noted, she 5

6 regularly worked four to six 24-hour shifts, or approximately 120 hours per week. Defendants never paid Plaintiff one and one half times the minimum wage rate for the hours worked greater than 40 in a week. 33. Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff an extra hour of pay at minimum wage for those days that she worked a "spread of hours," or a shift that lasted longer than ten hours in a given day. 34. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants intentionally, willfully and repeatedly violated New York Labor Law by: a. Failing to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage for all hours worked in each discrete workweek; b. Failing to pay Plaintiff one and a half the basic minimum hourly wage rate, for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. c. Failing to pay Plaintiff spread of hours pay amounting to an extra hour of pay at the minimum wage when the Plaintiff's workday exceeds ten hours. 35. Upon information and belief, unlawful.conduct as described herein is pursuant to a policy or practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by violating the New York Labor Law. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEW YORK LABOR LAW MINIMUM_WAGE 36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs. 6

7 37. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employee within the meaning of the New York Labor Law 190(2) and 651(5) and 12 N.Y.C.R.R At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were the employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of New York Labor Law 190(3) and 651(6). 39. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage in violation of New York Labor Law 652 and 12 N.Y.C.R.R Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff by failing to pay her wages due and owing for work performed in violation of New York State Labor Law. 41. Due to New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants her unpaid minimum wages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and other compensatory and equitable relief pursuant to New York Labor Law Article etseq., and Article 19, 650 et seq. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEW YORK LABOR LAW OVERTIME 42. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs. 43. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants failed to pay overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the New York State minimum wage rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the New York Labor Law, Article 19, 650 et seq. and 12 N.Y.C.R.R

8 44. Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff by failing to pay her wages due and owing for work performed in violation of the New York State Labor Law. 45. Due to New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants her unpaid overtime premium wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and other compensatory and equitable relief pursuant to New York Labor Law Article etseq., and Article et seq. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEW YORK LABOR LAW SPREAD OF HOURS 46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs. 47. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread of hours pay, amounting to an additional hour's pay at the minimum hourly wage rate for every day that she worked a spread of hours that exceeded ten hours, in violation of the New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff by failing to pay her wages due and owing for work performed in violation of the New York State Labor Law. 49. Due to New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants her unpaid overtime premium wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and other compensatory and equitable relief pursuant to New York Labor Law Article et seq., and Article et seq. 8

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: a. Unpaid minimum wages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest pursuant to the New York Labor Law; b. Liquidated damages pursuant to New York Labor Law Article a; c. Such additional and further relief as the Court finds just and proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 4102, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised by Complaint. Dated: New York, New York June 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted, By: Abigail Cook-Mack BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY Ph: (212) Fax: (212) acookmack@nyemployeelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 9

10 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY X LILIYA DUBNOVA SUMMONS Plaintiff, -against- Basis for venue is place business, 80 Maiden of Ln, New York, NY PROJECT 0.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE New York County as REFERRAL), INC., METROPOLITAN NEW YORK the place of trial. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JEWISH POVERTY and D'VORAH KOHN Date Index No. Purchased: June 26, 2015 Defendants X To Defendant: Project O.H.R. 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY You are hereby summoned to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on the undersigned Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York). In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: New York, New York June 25, 2014 By: BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP A gail Cook-Mack 80 Pine Street 33d floor New York, N.Y Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff

11 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY == X LILIYA DUBNOVA SUMMONS Plaintiff, -against- Basis for venue is place of business, 80 Maiden Ln, New York, NY PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE New York County as REFERRAL), INC., METROPOLITAN NEW YORK the place of trial. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JEWISH POVERTY and D'VORAH KOHN Date Index No. Purchased: X Defendants. June 26, 2015 To Defendant: D'Vorah Kohn, Executive Director Project O.H.R. 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY You are hereby summoned to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on the undersigned Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York). In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: New York, New York June 25, 2014 BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP By: A ail Cook-Mack 80 Pine Street 33rd floor New York, N.Y Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff

12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY X LILIYA DUBNOVA SUMMONS Plaintiff, -against- Basis for venue is place of business, 120 Broaday New York, NY PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE New York County as REFERRAL), INC., METROPOLITAN NEW YORK the place of trial. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JEWISH POVERTY and D'VORAH KOHN Date Index No. Purchased: June 26, 2015 Defendants X To Defendant: Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty 7"' 120 Broadway Floor New York, NY You are hereby summoned to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on the undersigned Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York). In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: New York, New York June 25, 2014 By: BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP Abigail Cook-Mack 80 Pine Street 33'd floor New York, N.Y Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff