Picard v Mallozzi

7/28/2019 Picard v Mallozzi

1/12

SUPREMECOURTOF THESTATEOF NEWYORKALBANYCOUNTY -----------------xRYAN PICARD, on behalf of himself and otherssimilarly situated,,Index o.: cl8q1?Plaintiff,

-against-CLASSACTIONBIGSBEE NTERPRISES,NC. d1b A MALLOZZI'S COMPTAINTRESTAURANT,FAIRWAY VIEW LLC d|b Ia THECLUBHOUSE AT WESTERNTURNPIKE,JRCOFROTTERDAM,LLC, GOLDEN TOQUE, NC.,MALLOZZI DISTRIBUTINGLLC dlb I aMALLOZZI'S AT COLONIE COUNTRY CLUB,MORELLI IMPORTERSAND DISTRIBUTORS LC.THE MALLOZZI GROUPLLC, JOHN MALLOZZI,and JOSEPHMALLOZZI,

?:_11*Plaintiff, on behalfof himself and all otherssimilarly situated,by and through

his attorneys, oseph& KirschenbaumLLP andBerke-Weiss PechmanLLP, as and forhis Complaint againstDefendantsBigsbeeEnterprises,nc, dlb I aMaIlozzl'sRestauranf FairwayView LLC dlb la The Clubhouseat WesternTurnpike, RC ofRotterdam,LLC, GoldenToque, nc.,MallozziDrstrtbuting LLC dlb I aMallozzl's atColonie Country Club, Morelli Importers and Distributors LLC, The Mallozzi GroupLLC, JohnMallozzi, andJosephMal\ozzi (collectively, Def.endants" r "Mallozz7"),allegesas ollows:

NATURE OF THE CASE1. This s a"wage and hour" class ction n which Plaintiffclaims

Defendants,his employers, llegally retainedsubstantialportionsof the gratuitiesofPlaintiff and the other serverswho worked at catering acilitiesowned and operatedbyDefendants. Plaintiff alsoalleges, n behalfof a classof similarly-sifuatedemployees,

AlbanyCountY lerkDocument umber 1368334Rcvd0410412013:17:33 M| lilililillllllllllllllilllllllllillillil


2/12

that Defendants ailed to provide a wagenotice pursuant o New York Labor Law("NYLL"), Article6, S195(1).

2. NYLL S196-d,provides hat:No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of anycorporation, or any other person shall demand or accept,directly or indirectly, anypart of the gratuities, eceivedbyan employee,or retain anypart of a gratuity or of any chargepurported to be a gratuity for an employee.

3. TheCourt of Appeals n Samientos.WorldYachtnc.,1.0N.Y.3d70,74(2008) tated: We conclude hat a charge hat is not a voluntarypaymentmay be achargepurported to be a gratuity' within the meaningof the stafue."

4. New York law further provides that "A chargepurported to be a gratuitymust be disfributed in full asgratuities o the serviceemployees r food serviceworkerswho provided the service." 2N.Y.C.R,R. 146-2.18(a). oreover, [t]hereshallbe arebuttablepresumption that any charge n addition to charges or food,beverage...including ut not limited to any chargeor "service"or "food service"s achargepurported to be a gratuity." 12 N.Y.C.R.R.S746-2.1,8(b).dditionally, "Theemployer has he burden of demonstrati .ng, y clearand convincingevidence,hat thenotificationwas sufficient o ensure hat a reasonable ustomerwould understand hatsuchchargewas not purported o be a gratuIry."72N.Y.C.R.R. 1,46-2.79(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE5. Jurisdiction s proper n this Court because he actsand or omissions

giving rise to the causes f action allegedhereinoccurred n Schenectady ounty.6. Venue s proper n this Court pursuant to New York Civil PracticeLaw

and RulesSection503(a)because laintiff resides n Albany County.


3/12

THE PARTIES7. Plaintiff RyanPicard s an Albany County residentand was employedby

Defendantsasa server atMallozzi's Restaurantrom in or aboutMarch 2011 hroughDecember2072.

8. Upon information andbeliel Defendantsarepart of a single ntegratedenterprise hat jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployees t all timesrelevant. EachDefendanthashad substantial ontrol overPlaintiff's and similarlysifuated employees'working conditions,andover the unlawful policiesand practicesalleged herein.9. Defendant BigsbeeEnterprises,nc. ("Bigsbee")dlb I aMaIlozzl'sRestaurant s a New York corporationwith its principal placeof businessocatedatL930Curry Road,Schenectady, ew York 12303-3902. igsbee rovidescateringservicesat severalvenues, ncluding Mallozzl'sRestaurant.

10. Bigsbee s a coveredemployerwithin the meaningof the NYLL, andemployed and/or jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithinthe meaningof the NYLL.

11. At all relevanttimes,Bigsbeemaintainedcontrol,oversight,and directionover Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncluding policiesgoverning heallocationof servicechargesand other employmentpracticeshat applied to them.

12. Upon information and beiiel DefendantFairwayView LLC dlb/a TheClubhouse at WesternTurnpike ("FairwayView") is a New York iimited liabilitycompany with its principal offices ocatedat 1930Curry Road,Schenectady, ew York72303-3902. airway View provides cateringservices t The Clubhouseat WesternTurnpike.


4/12

1.3. FairwayView is a coveredemployerwithin themeaningof theNYLL,and employed and/or jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithin the meaningof the NYLL.

14. At all relevant imes,Fairway View maintainedcontrol,oversigh! anddirection over Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncludingpoliciesgoverningthe allocationof servicechargesand other employmentpractices hat applied o them.

15. Upon information and belief, RC of Rotterdam,LLC ("JRC") s a NewYork limited liability companywith its principal placeof businessocatedat 1930CurryRoad,Schenectady, ew York 1,2303-3902.RCprovides cateringservices t variouslocations.

76. JRC s a coveredemployerwithin themeaningof the NYLL, andemployed and/or jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithinthe meaningof the NYLL.

77. At ali relevant imes,JRCmaintainedcontrol,oversighf and directionover Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncluding policiesgoverning heailocationof servicechargesand other employmentpracticeshat appliedto them,

18. Upon information and belief,GoldenToque, nc. ("GoldenToque") s aNew York corporationwith its principal placeof business ocated at1.930 urry Road,Schenectady, ew York 12303-3902. oldenToqueprovides cateringservices tvarious locations.

19. Colden Toque s a coveredemployerwithin themeaningof the NYLL,and employed and/or jointly employed Plainflff and similarly situatedemployeeswithin the meaning of the NYLL.


5/12

20. At all relevant imes,Golden Toquemaintainedcontrol,oversighf anddirectionover Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncluding policiesgoverningthe allocationof servicechargesand other employmentpracticeshat applied to them.

27. Upon information and beliel Mallozzi Distributing LLC dlb I aMallozziat ColonieCountry Club ("Mallozzi Distributing") is a New York limited liabilitycompanywith its principal offices ocatedat L930Curry Road,Schenectady, ew York12303-3902. allozzi Distributing provides cateringservices t ColonieCountry Club.

22. Mallozzi Distributing is a coveredemployerwithin the meaningof theNYLL, and employed and/or jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithin the meaning of the NYLL.

23. At all relevant times, MallozziDistributing maintained control, oversight,and directionover Plaintiff and similariy situatedemployees,ncludingpoliciesgoverning he allocationof servicechargesand other employmentpracticeshat appliedto them.

24. Upon information and beliel Morelli Importersand DistributorsLLC("Morelli") is a New York limited liabilify companywith its principalplaceof businesslocatedat 1930Curry Road,Schenectady, ew York 12303-3902. orelli providescateringservicesat various locations.

25. Morelli is a coveredemployer within the meaningof the NYLL, andemployedand/or jointly employed Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithinthe meaningof the NYLL.

26. At all relevant imes,Morelli maintainedcontrol,oversight and directionover Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncluding policiesgoverning heallocationof servicechargesand other employmentpractices hat applied to them.


6/12

27. Upon information and belief,TheMallozzi Group LLC ("MallozziGroup")is a New York limited liability companywith its principal offices ocatedat1930Curry Road,Schenectady,New York 72303-3902.Mallozzi Group providescateringservices t The Italian AmericanC1ub.

28. Mallozzi Group is a covered employer within the meaningof the NYLL,and employedand/or jointly employedPlaintiff and similarly situatedemployeeswithin the meaningof the NYLL.

29. At all relevant times, Mallozzi Group maintained control, oversight anddirectionover Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees,ncluding policiesgoverningthe allocationof servicechargesand other employmentpracticeshat applied to them.

30. Defendant JohnMallozzi is an owner and operatorof Mallozzi's andexercisesufficientcontrol of eachcatering ocation'sday-to-dayoperations o beconsidered n employer of Plaintiff and thosesimilarly sifuatedunder New York LaborLaw.

31,. DefendantJosephMalIozzi is an owner and operatorof.Mallozzi'sandexercises ufficientcontrol of eachcatering ocation'sday-to-dayoperations o beconsideredan employer of Plaintiff and thosesimilarly situatedunder New York LaborLaw.

32. DefendantsBigsbeeEnterprises, nc. dlb I aMallozzi's Restaurant,Fairway View LLC d b I a The Clubhouseat WesternTurnpike, RC of Rotterdam,LLC,Golden Toque, nc., MallozziDtsfributing LLC dlb I aMallozzl's at ColonieCountryClub, Morelli Importers and Distributors LLC, The Mallozzi Group LLC, JohnMallozz|andJosephMallozzi are singleand oint employersand have had a high degreeofinterrelatedand unified operationsand sharecommonmanagemenfcenkalizedcontrol


7/12

of labor relations,common ownership,commoncontrol,commonbusiness urposes,and interrelatedbusinessgoals.

CLASSACTION ALLEGATIONS33. Pursuant o Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice aw and Rules,

Plaintiff brings this sectionasa classactionon behalf of all serversemployedbyDefendantsat Mallozzl's within six yearsprior to the filing of this Complaint.

34. AscertainableClass:TheproposedClass s ascertainablen that tsmemberscanbe dentified and locatedusing nformation contained n Defendants'payroll and personnel ecords.

35. Numerosity: Thepotentialnumber of persons n the Class s so numerousthat joinder of all memberswould be unfeasibleand impractical. The dispositionoftheir claims hrough this classactionwill benefitboth the partiesand this Court. Thenumber of persons n the Class s unknown to Plaintff at this time. However, t isestimated hat the number exceeds 00 ndividuals.

36. Typicality: The claimsof Plaintiff (for gratuities, nterestand attorney'sfees) s typical of the claims of all of the other membersof the Classbecause ll of themsustainedsimilar njuries and damagesarisingout of Defendants'commoncourseofconduct n violation of Iaw, and the njuries and damages f all of the other membersofthe Classwerecausedby Defendants'wrongful conductasdescribedn this Complaint.

37. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate epresentative f the Class;will fairlyprotect the nterestsof the other membersof the Class;hasno interestsantagonistic othe membersof the Class;and will vigorously pursue this suit via attorneyswho arecompetent,skilledand experiencedn litigating mattersof this Vpe. ClassCounsel scompetentand experiencedn litigating largewage paymentclassactions.


8/12

38. Superiority: The nafureof this actionmakes he use of the classactionvehiclea particularlyefficientand appropriateprocedure o afford relief to Plaintiff andthe other membersof the Class or the wrongs allegedherein,as ollows:

a. This case nvolvesa iarge corporateDefendantand a largenumber ofindividuals with many relatively small claimsand common ssuesoflaw and fact;b. If each ndividual memberof the Classwasrequired o file anindividual lawsuit Defendantswould necessarily ain anunconscionable dvantagebecause, ith its vastly superior inancialand egal resources,t would be able o exploitand overwhelm helimited resources f each ndividual memberof the Class;c. Requiring each ndividuai memberof the Class o pursueanindividual remedy would alsodiscourage he assertion f lawfulclaimsby membersof the Classwho would be disinclined o pursueanactionagainstDefendantbecause f an appreciable nd ustifiable earof retaliation;d. The Prosecutionof separate ctionsby the ndividual membersof theClass,even f possible,would createa substantial isk of inconsistentor varying verdicts or adjudicaflonswith respect o the ndividualmembersof the CiassagainstDefendan! would establish otentiallyincompatiblestandardsof conduct or Defendant,would result n legaldeterminationwith respect o individual membersof the Classwhichwould, as a practicalmatter,be dispositiveof the nterestof the othermembersof the Classwho arenot parfles o the adjudications; nd/ orwould substantially mpair or impede the ability of the membersof theClass o protect their own interests;e. Theclaims of the ndividual membersof the Classmay not besufficiently arge to warrant vigorous ndividual prosecutionconsideringali of the concomitantcostsand expenseshereto;f . Furthermore,as he damages ufferedby each ndividual member ofthe Classmay be relativelysmall, he expense nd burden of

individual litigation would make t difficult or impossible orindividual member of the Class o redress hewrongs doneto them,while an important public interestwill be servedby addressing hematter as a classaction; andg. Thecosts o the court systemof adjudicationof such ndividualizedlitigation would be substantial.


9/12

39. Existence f Predominance f CommonQuestionsof Factand Law:Common questionsof law and fact exist as o membersof theClasswhich predominateover questionsaffectingonly individual membersof the Class, ncluding, but notlimited to, the following:

a. WhetherDefendantsunlawfully failed to distribute gratuities oPlaintiff and othermembersof the Classn violationof N.Y. Lab.L. I796-d;b. WhetherPlaintiff and the othermembersof the Classare enfitled todamages, nd f so, he meansof measuringsuchdamages; ndc. WhetherDefendantsare iable for attorneys' eesand costs.

40. Plainfffs intend to sendnotice o all membersof the Class o the extentrequired by Article 9.

STATEMENT OF FACTS41,. Plaintiff worked for Defendantsat various cateringhalls operatedby

Mallozzi.42. Throughout Plaintiff's employment,Defendants hargedall banquet

customersa mandatory "20/oServicePersonnelCharge" on top of their cateringbill.Although a reasonable ustomerwould have believed hat themandatory "20/oServicePersonnelCharge" was a gratulty,Defendantsdid not distribute his gratuity servicecharge o the servers,who were paid a flat hourly rate.

43. When askedby customers f they receivedgratuities,Plaintiff andmembersof the classwere to respond,as nstructedby Defendants,hat they didreceive ips.

44. Plaintiff and membersof the classsustainedsubstantialosses romDefendants'withholding of gratuities.


10/12

45. Other employeeswho worked for Defendantsandwho aremembersofthe Classwere subjected o the samepoliciesand practices oncerninghe retentionofgratuitiesatMallozzi's Restaurant nd havesustained imilar osses f compensationdue to Defendants' llegal actions.

46. Upon informafion andbelief, he damages f the Classexceed 1,000,000exclusiveof interesf costs, eesand disbursements.

FIRSTCTAIM FOR RELIEF(Illegal Deductions rom Gratuities,N.Y.Lab. L. S1,96-d)47. Plaintiff realleges nd ncorporatesby reference ll allegationsn all

precedingparagraphs.48. At all times relevant,Plaintiff has been an employeewithin the meaning

of NYLL Article 6, SS190et,seq,, nd any supportingNew York StateDepartunent fLabor Regulations.

49. At all times relevan! Defendantshave beenan employerwithin themeaningof NYLL, Article 6, SS190et seq., nd any supporting New York StateDepartmentof Labor regulations.

50. At a1l imes relevant Defendantsdemandedor accepted, irectly orindirectly, or retaineda portion of the mandatory charges aid by customershat werepurported to be gratuities or Plaintiff.

51. At all fimes relevant,Defendantshave beenagentsor officersof acorporationwithin the meaningof NYLL, Article 6,5796-d and the supporting NewYork StateDepartmentof Labor regulations.

52. By Defendants'knowing or intentional demand or, acceptance f, and/orretentionof the mandatory charges aid by customerswhen contractingwithDefendants,when suchcustomerswere led to beiieve hat suchmandatory charges

t0


11/12

would be paid to Plaintiff, Defendantshave willfully violatedNYLL, Article 6 51,96-dand the supportingNew York StateDeparbnentof LaborRegulations.

53. Due to Defendants'violationsof the NYLL, Plaintiff s entitled o recoverfrom Defendantsunpaid wages, easonable ttorneys'fees, osts,and pre-judgmentandpost-judgment nterest.

54. Plaintiff and the other membersof the Classdo not seek iquidateddamages.

WHEREFORE,Plaintiff, ndividually and on behalf of himselfand all othermembersof the Class,prays for relief as ollows:

1. Certificationof this caseasa classactionpursuant o CPLRSS901 and902for the classof empioyeesdescribed erein,certificationof Plaintiff as heclass epresentative, nd designationof Plaintiff's counselasClassCounsel;

2. Unpaid wages,asportions of servicecharges nd/or gratuities etainedby Defendants hat were paid by customers nd intended or Plaintiffs,and which customers easonably elieved o be gratuities or Plaintiffs,pursuant to the NYLL and supporting New York StateDepartmentofLabor Regulations;

3. Pre-judgmentand post-judgment nteresf asprovided by law;4. Reasonable ttorneys' eesand costsof the action, ncluding expert ees;5. Appropriate equitableand njunctive relief to remedy Defendants'

violationsof New York law, including but not limited to an orderenjoiningDefendants rom continuing ts unlawful practices; nd

l1


12/12

6. Suchother njunctive and equitable elief as he Court may deemnecessary,ust and proper.

Dated:March 29,2013Respectfullyubmitted,JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUMLP

t l r lsu' ['VA-D. Maimon Kirschenbaum

Jessica . Tischler488Madison Avenue,11'h loorNew York, New York 1,0022(212)sB3-9500Attorneyfor Plaintiff

MatthewKadushan233Broadway,5'hFloorNew York NY 10279(272)688-s640

I2

Picard v Mallozzi

Documents

Transcript of Picard v Mallozzi