15.  Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit to recover from Defendants his full payment of all  unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the applicable provisions of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individually, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of those in the  following collective:  Current and former employees of Defendants who, during the  applicable FLSA limitations period, performed any work for  Defendants as non-managerial construction laborers who give  consent to file a claim to recover damages for overtime  compensation that is legally due to them for time worked in excess  of forty hours per week (“FLSA Plaintiffs”).   16.  Defendants treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiff and  all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts” section  below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or similar  manner; (4) were required to work in excess of forty hours each workweek; and (5) were not paid  the required rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked  over forty in a workweek.  5   17.  At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of the requirement to pay Plaintiff  and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to one and one-half times their respective regular rates  of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty, yet Defendants purposefully chose not to  do so.  Thus, Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants’ pervasive practice of  willfully refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA.  18.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to FRCP  23(b)(3), on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of those who are similarly-situated whom, during  the applicable statutory period, Defendants also subjected to violations of the NYLL and the  31.  From at least six years prior to the commencement of this action until on or about  July 26, 2016, Defendant BSI was engaged in the construction business, and provided its services  to customers in Long Island and New York City.   32.  During at least that period of time, Defendant Messina was the principal  shareholder and day-to-day overseer of BSI, who in that capacity was responsible for determining  employees’ rates and methods of pay and the hours that employees were required to work.   Furthermore, Defendant Messina personally hired Plaintiff and all other BSI employees.   33.  On or about July 26, 2016, Defendant Messina sold Defendant BSI’s construction  business to Defendant Villansaca, who reincorporated the business as BSBI.  9   34.  Defendant BSBI, as the successor entity of Defendant BSI, assumed liability for all  debts, legal obligations and claims against Defendant BSI.   35.  The reincorporated business, BSBI, continued to employ Plaintiff and all other  persons employed as construction laborers by BSI at the time of the sale of the business, and BSBI  has continued and continues to provide its construction services to customers in Long Island and  New York City.   36.  Defendant Villansaca is the principal shareholder and day-to-day overseer of BSBI  who in that capacity is responsible for determining employees’ rates and methods of pay and the  hours that employees are required to work.  Furthermore, Defendant Villansaca personally hired  all BSBI employees after the date of sale, and personally fired Plaintiff and any other BSBI  employees whose employment has been terminated since then.   37.  Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a construction worker at BSI and BSBI,  collectively, from in or about September 2011 to February 16, 2017.  Throughout his employment,  Plaintiff’s duties mainly consisted of preparing and grading the sites of masonry work, laying  cement, setting and mortaring bricks, stones, and similar materials, carrying materials and tools,  and keeping work areas clean.  Plaintiff primarily performed these tasks at different job sites in  Long Island and in New York City.   38.  Throughout the entirety of his employment, first for BSI and continuing for BSBI,  Plaintiff worked from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., five days per week, with a thirty-minute lunch break  each day, for a total of fifty-two and one-half hours per week.   39.  Throughout the entirety of his employment, first for BSI and continuing for BSBI,  as reflected on his paystubs, Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly rate of $17.00 for only the first  forty hours that Plaintiff worked each week.  10   40.  Throughout his entire employment, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at any rate of  pay, let alone his overtime rate of pay of $25.50 per hour, for any hours that he worked in excess  of forty per week.   41.  Plaintiff worked more than forty hours in all workweeks in which Defendants  employed him.  For example, during the workweek of June 12, 2016 to June 18, 2016, Plaintiff  worked fifty-two and one-half hours and Defendants paid him $17.00 per hour for only his first  forty hours of work.  As a second example, during the workweek of February 5, 2017 to February  11, 2017, Plaintiff worked fifty-two and one-half hours and Defendants paid him $17.00 per hour  for only his first forty hours of work.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay  for any hours that he worked in excess of forty in either of those weeks.   42.  Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis.   43.  On each occasion when they paid Plaintiff, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff  with a wage statement that accurately reflected, inter alia, the amount of hours that he worked  each week, or his overtime rates of pay for each hour that he worked in excess of forty in a given  workweek.   44.  Defendants did not furnish Plaintiff at the time of his hire, or any time thereafter,  with a wage notice that accurately stated, inter alia, his rate(s) of pay, including any overtime rate  of pay.   45.  Defendants treated Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs in the same  manner described herein.   46.  Defendants acted in the manner described herein so as to maximize their profits  while minimizing their labor costs.  11   47.  Every hour that Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked was for  Defendants’ benefit.   48.  On October 13, 2015, a prior legal action was commenced against Defendant BSI  and Defendant Messina in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in  a case entitled “Juan Mayancela v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc. and Daniel Messina,” under Docket  Number 15-cv-05866 (SJF)(AYS).    49.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.   50.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for any hours worked exceeding forty   in a workweek.     51.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA  while Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.   52.  As also described above, Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty  hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs in  accordance with the FLSA’s overtime provisions.    53.  Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.   54.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked per  week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.    55.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and attorneys’  fees for Defendants’ violations of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  12  56.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if more fully set forth herein.    57.  NYLL § 160 and 12 NYCCRR § 142-2.2 require employers to compensate their  employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for any hours  worked exceeding forty in a workweek.   58.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL  and the NYCCRR, while Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this  action are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and the NYCCRR.   59.  As also described above, Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who  opts-in to this action worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to  compensate them in accordance with the NYLL’s and the NYCCRR’s overtime provisions.   60.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action are  entitled to their overtime pay for all hours worked per week in excess of forty at the rate of one  and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.   61.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action are  also entitled to liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ violations of the  NYLL’s and NYCCRR’s overtime provisions.  13  62.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if fully set forth herein.   63.  NYLL § 195(1) requires that employers provide employees with a wage notice at  the time of hire containing accurate, specifically enumerated criteria.   64.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL  and the NYCCRR, while Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this  action are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and the NYCCRR.   65.  As also described above, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs,  and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action with accurate wage notices upon hire, or at any  time thereafter, containing the criteria required under the NYLL.   66.  Prior to February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-b), Defendants are liable to  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action in the amount of  $50 for each workweek after the violation occurred, up to the statutory cap of $2,500.    67.  On or after February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-b), Defendants are liable  to Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action in the amount of  $50 for each day after the violation occurred, up to the statutory cap of $5,000.   Failure to Furnish Proper Wage Notice in Violation of the NYLL   Unpaid Overtime Under the NYLL and the NYCCRR   Unpaid Overtime Under the FLSA  