45. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a class and collective action on  behalf of all persons similarly situated and proximately damaged by the Defendants’ unlawful  conduct as follows:  (a) failure to pay wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation at rates  not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work in excess  of forty hours per workweek, as required by the FLSA;  (b) failure pay for all hours worked and overtime compensation in breach of  Article 19 of the NYLL, and failure to comply with related wage and hour  provisions of the NYLL, including but not limited to wage statement and wage  notice requirements;   (c) engaging in a pattern and practice whereby defendants deprived Plaintiffs and  Class Members of prevailing wages that Defendants were obligated to pay  under NYLL § 220(3)(a) and/or pursuant to their contracts with public  agencies that incorporated prevailing wage obligations, by, inter alia: (a)  creating, certifying and/or submitting false time and payroll records relating to  the Projects, which, upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their  agents submitted to the New York City Comptroller’s office and/or other  public agencies; (b) orchestrating unlawful kickbacks by paying workers in  cash at rates that were lower than prevailing wage schedules, while demanding  that workers sign “payroll” checks, which Defendants kept; and (c) demanding  that workers at the Projects conceal facts from and/or misrepresent  Defendants’ practices to public investigators as a precondition for their  continued employment.   FLSA Collective   47. This action claims that Defendants violated the wage and hour provisions of FLSA  by depriving Named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to Named Plaintiffs, of their lawful  wages.  Upon information and belief, there are many similarly situated current and former  workers of Defendants who have been underpaid in violation of the FLSA and who would  benefit from court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join this lawsuit.   48. Consistent with the Defendants’ policies and patterns or practices, the Named  Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective were not paid proper overtime compensation of 1.5 times their  regular rates of pay for all hours worked beyond forty per workweek.    49. All of the work that the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed  was assigned by the Defendants, and/or the Defendants have been aware of all of the work that  the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed.    50. The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable.  Their names and addresses  are readily available from Defendants.    51. As part of their regular business practice, the Defendants have intentionally,  willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of violating the FLSA with  respect to the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective.  This policy and pattern or practice  includes, but is not limited to, willfully failing to pay proper premium overtime wages for all  hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.    52. Consent to sue forms for the Named Plaintiffs are being filed with this Court  contemporaneously with the filing of this complaint.   NYLL/Prevailing Wage Class   54. The Named Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of themselves and the  NYLL/Prevailing Wage Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to  remedy: (a) Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage, overtime and related wage and hour  provisions of the NYLL; (b) Defendants’ breach of their contractual obligations to pay  prevailing wages under contracts of which Plaintiffs and Class Members are third party  beneficiaries; and (c) Defendants’ willful breach of their prevailing wage obligations at the  Projects through (i) their pattern and practice of demanding kick-backs from workers in  exchange for employment at the Projects and (ii) willful deception of government agencies by  knowingly creating, certifying and submitting materially false business records relating to the  personnel and wages at the Projects, all in an effort to violate and/or conceal violations of  prevailing wage rules.    55. Members of the NYLL/Prevailing Wage Class are readily ascertainable.  The  number and identity of the Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants.   The positions held, and nature and extent of certain unlawful deductions from wages are also  determinable from Defendants’ records.     56. The Defendants, their officers, and directors are excluded from the Classes.   58. Defendants’ unlawful and corrupt wage practices at the Projects were extensive,  willful, and involved their collusion to falsify business records and mislead government  compliance officers.  Defendants’ Willful Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages Required by the  FLSA and NYLL:     59. As described herein, Defendants have knowingly failed to adequately compensate  those employees within the class definitions identified above for wages, including minimum  wage and premium (overtime) wages due, under the FLSA (29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207) and the  NYLL, as well as legally-mandated prevailing wages.     60. At all relevant times, Defendants employed, and/or continue to employ Class  Members within the meaning of the NYLL and FLSA.   61. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members at 1.5 times their  regular rate for their overtime and/or required workers to perform overtime work with no  compensation at all for these work hours.   63. Defendants required workers to supply and pay for “tools of the trade,” including  but not limited to paint sprayers and protective facemasks.   64. The Defendants applied the same policies, practices, and procedures to finish  workers (i.e., tapers, painters, plasterers, and drywall framers) at 280-282 East Burnside Avenue,  2247 Walton Avenue and 2848 Bainbridge Avenue in Bronx County, New York.     Facts Relating to Plaintiffs’ Status as Third Party Beneficiaries of Prevailing  Wage Construction Agreements and Defendants’ Scheme to Deprive Plaintiffs  of Prevailing Wages:      65.  The Projects constituted public works projects as defined by Article 9 of the New  York Labor Law and/or pursuant to other applicable law.    66. New York Labor Law § 220 provides that the wages to be paid to works upon public  work shall not be less than “prevailing rate of wages.”   67. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons supplied labor in  connection with, and in further of, the work required by Defendants at the Projects; and in doing  so, complied with the terms of their employment agreements with Defendants.    68. Defendants breached their contractual obligations, which, upon information and  belief, incorporated NYLL § 220, by shortchanging Named Plaintiffs and all others similarly  situated.  Defendants effectuated this scheme through a pervasive pattern of illegal kickbacks,  whereby Defendants would issue paychecks to certain Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated  employees at or near the required “prevailing wage,” amount(s), and require workers to endorse  the checks back to Defendants.  Defendants would give significantly lower cash wages to  Plaintiffs, in the amounts set forth herein below, and all others similarly situated.    70. Upon information and belief, the Serviam Heights Development (at 2848 Bainbridge  Avenue) was financed with “$47 million in fixed-rate, tax-exempt bonds from HDC and $11.9  million  from  the  HDC  Corporate  Reserves.”  (See  https://www.novoco.com/periodicals/news/low-income-housing-tax-credits-news-briefs-august- 2016 (accessed on February 16, 2018)).    71. Upon information and belief, Graves operated in the shadows of the New York  construction industry, with a track record of willfully and systematically underpaying (and/or  failing to pay) laborers in violation of the FLSA, NYLL and/or prevailing wage requirements.     72. Upon information and belief, Graves’ willingness to flout wage laws and other legal  obligations enabled Cheever, Graves and their agents and managers at the Projects to extract  unlawful profits by usurping public funds that were earmarked for Plaintiffs and Class Members.    73.  Upon information and belief, Graves’ agents at the Projects collaborated with  Cheever’s management team, including Ashton Besse (“Besse”), Cheever’s General Super, to  conceal unlawful wage practices, including “kick-backs.”     74. Besse’s job responsibilities for Cheever included, inter alia, overseeing  superintendents, foremen and craftsmen on all construction sites on a daily basis, managing  subcontractors,  and  “ensuring  adherence  to  contract  instruments.”  See  http://www.cheeverdevelopment.com/managementteam.htm (accessed on February 6, 2018)   76.   Upon information and belief, on or about January 9, 2018, in an effort to cover up  their scheme of depriving Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees of prevailing wages,  Defendants abruptly terminated the employment of Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees  who were designated as employees of Sheer Taping, and ordered them, without notice, to cease  reporting to work at the Serviam Heights Project.    77. Through their foregoing collusion, Defendants unlawfully retained, for their own  financial gain, portions of funds paid by government agencies that were earmarked for the  benefit of Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers at the Projects.   79. All of the Plaintiffs were required to provide and pay for their own tools of the trade,  without reimbursement from Defendants.    80. Defendants paid certain Plaintiffs every fifteen days, in violation of NYLL §  190(1)(a)(i), which provides that employers must pay manual workers “weekly and not later than  seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned.”  Jimenez   81. Jimenez worked at the Serviam Heights Development as a painter and drywall  finisher beginning in or about May 2017 until in or about January 2018.   Jimenez worked five  and six day workweeks.  On weekdays, he began at 7:00 a.m. until as late as 9:00 p.m. On  Saturdays, Jimenez worked eight hours.     82. Despite workweeks of 68 or more hours, Jimenez was not paid one and one half  times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.  Instead,  Jimenez was paid at his regular hourly rate of $18.75 per hour, with no premium overtime  compensation.     Lopez   83. Lopez worked as a painter and drywall finisher at the Serviam Heights Development  beginning from approximately April through December 2016.      85. Despite working as much as 58 hours per week, Lopez was never paid premium  overtime compensation.  Instead, Defendants paid Lopez the same regular daily rate ($100.00)  regardless of the number of hours or days per week that he worked.   Vega   86. Vega worked as a painter and drywall finisher at the Serviam Heights Development  beginning in the summer of 2016 until on or about December 10, 2017.      87. Vega was paid $130.00 per day, regardless of the number of overtime hours that he  worked.     88. Vega alternately worked five and six days per week.  On weekdays, he worked from  7:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. On Saturdays, he typically worked an eight-hour shift.   89. Despite working as much as 58 hours per week, Vega was never paid premium  overtime compensation.  Instead, Defendants paid Vega the same regular daily rate ($130.00)  regardless of the number of hours or days per week that he worked.   Calvo   90. Calvo worked as a painter, sander and drywall finisher at the Serviam Heights  Development beginning in or about May 2017 until on or about December 16, 2017.   Calvo’s  work involved interior finishing work, including painting moldings in interior areas of the  Serviam Heights Development and sanding surfaces, including walls.   92. Calvo worked particularly long hours during the last four months of his employment  with defendants (i.e., from September 2017 through December 16, 2017).  During this period,  Calvo worked until as late as 9:00 p.m.     93. Despite Calvo’s workweeks that encompassed more than 40 hours, Calvo was not  paid one and one half time his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  workweek.  Calvo was paid a fixed daily rate of $140.00 that only compensated him for the first  forty hours that he worked per week.      Villanueva    94. Villanueva worked as a painter and drywall finisher at the Serviam Heights  Development beginning on or about May 7, 2017 until on or about January 1, 2018.      95. During his employment, Villanueva regularly worked six days per week.  On  weekdays, Villanueva worked twelve hours per day.  On Saturdays, Villanueva worked eight  hours.  Despite these 60-hour-plus workweeks, Villanueva was not paid one and one half time  his regular rate for overtime hours.  Instead, he was paid at his regular pay rate, with no premium  overtime compensation.     Correa   96. Correa worked as a painter and drywall finisher at the Serviam Heights  Development during the spring of 2017.    97. Correa was paid $100.00 per day, which did not vary even when Correa was  required to stay later or work a longer schedule than usual.     Illegal Deductions, New York Labor Law, Article 19 § 193  and 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.10(a).  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the NYLL/Prevailing Wage Class – Rule 23)  149. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with  the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.  150. In violation of the New York Labor Law, Article 19, § 193, Defendants unlawfully  deducted wages from Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class, including, inter alia,  requiring Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers to provide and pay for their own “tools of the  trade,” which further reduced their effective, hourly rates of compensation below the required  minimum and overtime rates of pay.   151. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants on their  own behalf, and on behalf of putative New York Class Members similarly situated for  reimbursement of unlawful deductions, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.  New York Labor Law – Overtime Wages  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the NYLL/Prevailing Wage Class – Rule 23)  137. Named Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.  138. Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern, policy and practice of violating  the NYLL, as detailed in this Complaint.  139. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been employees of  Defendants, and Defendants have been employers of Plaintiffs and Class Members within the  meaning of the NYLL §§ 650 et seq. and New York State Department of Labor Regulations.  140. At all times relevant, Named Plaintiffs and Class Members have been covered by the 