16.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   17.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of  hours pay, unlawful retention of tips, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of  hiring and failure to provide a correct wage statement with every payment of wages would  financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.    18.  From approximately February 2016 to June 20, 2017, Plaintiff was hired by  Defendants to work as a delivery worker for Defendants’ Chinese restaurant King Wok located at  6669 Broadway, Bronx, New York 10471.   19.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for minimum and overtime compensation  according to state and federal laws.    20.  From approximately February 2016 to January 2017, Plaintiff was employed on a  part-time basis. He worked one day per week on every Monday.    22.  During this period, Plaintiff was paid a fixed daily rate of $70 regardless of the  hours worked and he was not paid for all hours worked.   23.  From February 10, 2017 to June 20, 2017, Plaintiff was employed on a full-time  basis. He worked seven days per week.   24.  During this period, Plaintiff worked the following schedule: from Monday through  Thursday, Plaintiff worked from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm; On Friday and Saturday, Plaintiff worked  from 11:00 am to 12:00 midnight; On Sunday, Plaintiff worked from 12:00 noon to 11:00 pm.  Plaintiff was also required to spend about 1 hour per day driving Defendants’ other employees to  and from King Wok and their residence in Yonkers, NY.  Therefore, Plaintiff worked  approximately 92 hours per week.   25.  Plaintiff was paid a fixed monthly rate of $2,080 regardless of the hours worked  and he was not compensated for all hours worked.    26.  On any given work day, except for three short meal breaks, Defendants did not  grant Plaintiff any kind of rest period of any length. Plaintiff normally had three meals per day and  spent around 5 to 10 minutes for each meal.    27.  Since approximately August 2016, King Wok started taking online delivery orders  from platforms such as Seamless.   29.  Plaintiff delivered about 20 to 30 online orders per work day since approximately  August 2016. Plaintiff received $20 to $30 daily from the “tip pool” for online orders. Upon  information and belief, the tips for online orders range from $2.30 to about $5.00. Therefore,  Defendants retained at least approximately $50 to $75 daily in tips earned by Plaintiff.    30.  By unlawfully retaining part or all of the tips earned by Plaintiff, Defendants  prevented Plaintiff from retaining all of the tips he should have received in violation of NYLL  §196-d.   31.  Plaintiff was not required to keep track of his time, nor to his knowledge did the  Defendant utilize any tracking device, such as punch cards or sign in sheets, that accurately  recorded his actual hours worked.   32.  Plaintiff regularly worked more than ten (10) hours in a workday. However,  Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff with an additional one hour's  pay at the full minimum wage for each day his workday exceeded ten (10) hours, as required  spread-of-hours pay under New York law.   33.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for minimum wage and/or overtime  compensation according to state and federal laws.   34.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notice, at the time of his hiring,  in English and in Mandarin (the primary language identified by Plaintiff), of his rate of pay,  employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).   35.  Defendants also did not provide Plaintiff with proper statement of wages with each  wage payment, as required by NYLL §195(3).    37.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages, overtime premium and  the “spread of hours” premium would economically injure Plaintiff, and the Class Members by  their violation of federal and state laws.    38.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal or state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.     39.  The work days of Plaintiff and Class Members always lasted longer than 10 hours.     40.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and the Class Members New York’s “spread of  hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.     41.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and Class Members with written notices about  the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in relation to their rate of pay, regular pay  cycle and rate of overtime pay.    42.  Defendants’ unlawfully retained part or all of the gratuities earned by Plaintiff and  other Class Members.    43.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, and the FLSA  Collective.   44.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff or other  similarly situated employees.    46.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of  unlawfully retaining and preventing Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees from  receiving their amount of tips they were supposed to receive.  47.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at their restaurant locations  for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective Action  Period”) (the “Collective Action Members”). Upon information and belief, the Collection Action  Members are so numerous the joinder of all members is impracticable. The identity and precise  number of such persons are unknown, and the facts upon which the calculations of that number  may be ascertained are presently within the sole control of the Defendants. Upon information and  belief, there are more than forty (40) Collective Action members, who have worked for or have  continued to work for the Defendants during the Collective Action Period, most of whom would  not likely file individual suits because they fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources,  access to attorneys, or knowledge of their claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case should  be certified as a collection action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    48.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those  members of this collective action.   50.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore,  inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members may be relatively  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually impossible for the  members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. There  will be no difficulty in the management of this action as collective action.    52.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    53.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   54.  Plaintiff bring their NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.  R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees of Defendants at King Wok on or after  the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class  Period”).    55.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as the “Class.” The Class  members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class members are  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the positions held,  and the rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purpose of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily  available from Defendants.  Notice can be provided by means permissible under said F.R.C.P 23.    57.  Plaintiff’ claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any member  of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief  that  would  be  sought  by  each member   of  the  Class  in  separate  actions.  All the Class members were subject to the same corporate  practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay minimum wage, overtime  compensation, gratuities violation, and “spread of hours” compensation. Defendants’ corporation  wide policies and practices, including but not limited to their failure to provide a wage notice at  the time of hiring, affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same  type of unfair and/ or wrongful acts as to each Class member. Plaintiff and other Class members  sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices  and procedures.    58.  Plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has no  interests antagonistic to the Class.  Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are experienced and  competent in representing plaintiffs in both class action and wage and hour employment litigation  cases.     60.  Upon information and belief, defendants and other employers throughout the state  violate the New York Labor Law.  Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of  fear of direct or indirect retaliation.  Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because  doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment.   Class actions provide class members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity  which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.     62.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    64.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff, within  the meaning of FLSA.    65.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    66.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    67.  At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay the  statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff, and the collective action members, for some or all of the  hours they worked.    68.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.    69.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA  as  evidenced  by  failing  to  compensate  Plaintiff and  Collective  Action  Members  at  the statutory  minimum wage when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so  would financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   70.  Plaintiff re-alleges and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    72.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments, for  liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    73.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.   74.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    75.  The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a covered  employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives  compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one-half  times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times the minimum  wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).    76.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.  29 U.S.C. §216(b).    77.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    79.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of  employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.    80.  Defendants willfully failed to notify Plaintiff and FLSA Collective of the  requirements of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiff’s  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.    81.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of  the  FLSA  as  evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Action Members the statutory  overtime rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week when they  knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so would financially injure Plaintiff  and Collective Action members.   82.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.    83.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay proper overtime compensation shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments,  for liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    84.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    86.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    87.  The NYLL requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay for every day that an  employee works an interval in excess of ten hours pursuant to NYLL §§190, et seq., and §§650,  et seq., and Part 146 of Title 12 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of  the State of New York. 12 NYCRR §146-1.6   88.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was not  in good faith.   92.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    93.  The Defendants failed to furnish with each wage payment a statement listing: the  dates of work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address  and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour,  shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the  overtime rate or rates of pay; the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime  hours worked; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage;  and net wages; in violation of the NYLL, § 195(3).   94.  Due to the Defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(3), the Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from the Defendants liquidated damages of $250.00 per work day that the violation  occurred, up to a maximum of $5,000.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs and disbursements  of the action, pursuant to the NYLL, § 198(1-d).   95.  The Defendants’ NYLL violations have caused the Plaintiff irreparable harm for  which there is no adequate remedy at law.  96.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   97.  NYLL § 196-d bars an employer from retaining “any part of a gratuity or of any  charge purported to be gratuity [.]”   98.  New York Labor Law further prohibits an employer or his agent from demanding  or accepting, “directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities received by an employee, or retaining  any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee.” N.Y. Labor  Law§196-d.   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Failure to Provide Wage Statement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Hours Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]  