14   25.  Defendants operate Defendant Kang Ho Dong in Flushing, New York, located at  152-12 Northern Blvd, Flushing, NY 11354.   26.  The individual Defendant Jae Yong Son possesses operational control over  Defendant Kang Ho Dong, possesses ownership interests in Defendant Kang Ho Dong, and  controls significant functions of Defendant Kang Ho Dong.   27.  Defendants are associated and joint employers, act in the interest of each other  with respect to employees, pay employees by the same method, and share control over the  employees.   28.  Each Defendant has possessed substantial control over Plaintiff, the FLSA  Collective Members, and the Class Members’ working conditions, and over the policies and  practices with respect to the employment and compensation of Plaintiff, and all similarly situated  individuals referred to herein.  6   29.  Defendants have jointly employed Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Members, and  the Class Members and are their employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and  the NYLL.   Defendants Constitute a Single Employer   30.  In the alternative, Defendants constitute a single employer of Plaintiff, the FLSA  Collective Members, and the Class Members.   31.  Individual Defendant Jae Yong Son operates Defendant corporation Kang Ho  Dong as an alter ego of himself and/or fails to operate Defendant corporation Kang Ho Dong as  an entity legally separate and apart from himself, among other things, by:  a) failing to adhere to the corporate formalities necessary to operate Defendant Kang  Ho Dong as a corporation;  b) defectively forming or maintaining the corporate entity of Defendant Kang Ho  Dong, by, among other things, failing to hold annual meetings or maintain  appropriate corporate records;  c) transferring assets and debts freely as between all Defendants;  d) operating Defendant Kang Ho Dong for his own benefit as the sole or majority  shareholder;  e) operating Defendant Kang Ho Dong for his own benefit and maintaining control  over it as a closed corporation;  f) intermingling assets and debts of his own with Defendant Kang Ho Dong;  g) diminishing and/or transferring assets of Defendant Kang Ho Dong to avoid full  liability as necessary to protect his own interests; and  h) other actions evincing a failure to adhere to the corporate form.  7  Plaintiff Mr. Amos Lee  Defendants’ Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, and Engagement in a Kickback  Scheme by Illegally Deducting Plaintiff’s Wages   32.  The FLSA and NYLL require that Defendants pay every non-exempt employee a  minimum wage for all hours worked.  29 U.S.C. 206; N.Y. Lab. Law 652.   33.  The FLSA and NYLL require that Defendants pay every non-exempt employee  an overtime rate of one-and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess  of 40 each week. 29 U.S.C. § 207; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 137-1.3.   34.  During all relevant times, Defendant Kang Ho Dong’s operating hours were:  Mondays through Sundays , from 11:30 a.m. to 5 a.m.   35.  Breaks were officially listed from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Kang Ho Dong, but  were not formally recorded and/or used by the employees.  Plaintiff was not given uninterrupted  breaks during the work day.  Specifically, Plaintiff was obligated to eat his meals while  continuing to perform work.    36.  Defendants did not maintain time and pay records at Defendant Kang Ho Dong  that purport to show that Plaintiff was clocked in and out during the work day.   37.  Defendants did not maintain the hours worked and pay received by Plaintiff.   Defendants did not produce pay stubs that purport to show that Defendants were paid lawful  wages with accurate hours reflected on such paystubs.    38.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a waiter from May 2016 to March 3,  2017.    39.  Waiters fall under the category of “tipped employees” pursuant to the FLSA.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              8   40.  During his employment at Defendant Kang Ho Dong, Plaintiff worked mostly  five to six days a week.     41.  The days that Plaintiff worked varied week to week, but he usually worked one of  the following four shifts: (1) 3 p.m. to 2 a.m.; (2) 6 p.m. to 5 a.m.; (3) 12 p.m. to 12 a.m.; and (4)  10 a.m. to 10 p.m.   42.  During this time period, Plaintiff worked approximately 55 to 65 hours per week.       43.  Defendants applied an invalid “tip credit” to pay Plaintiff at a reduced minimum  wage rate for his first forty hours of work per week.   44.  Defendants failed to provide sufficient notice to Plaintiff regarding the tip credit  provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL, or their intent to apply a tip credit to his wages.   45.  As a result, Defendants were not entitled to reduce Plaintiff’s minimum wage rate  by applying the tip credit allowance that is available under the FLSA and NYLL.   46.  Most significantly, throughout his employment, Plaintiff was paid for forty hours  of work by checks that indicate random payment.  However, Plaintiff was then ordered by  Defendants to pay back a certain sum in cash to Defendants based on the number that was  marked on the outside of the envelopes that were distributed to the employees (including  Plaintiff) along with the checks. See Defendants’ Checks and Marked Envelopes Addressed to  Plaintiff attached as Exhibit A.  This was a system that was set into place purposefully by  Defendant to make it appear as if they were obliging by the wage and hour laws under the FLSA  and the NYLL.     47.  For example, on February 19, 2017, Defendants wrote a check in the amount of  $407.68 to Plaintiff. See Exhibit A.  This check was placed in an envelope, indicating Plaintiff’s  name, and a number “287” was marked on the envelope.  The envelope, with the check enclosed  9  within, was distributed to Plaintiff on or around February 19, 2017.  However, upon receipt of  this check payment of $407.68, Plaintiff was then required to pay back to Defendants $287.00 in  cash.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s base wages for this period were only about $120.68.  This kickback  scheme occurred during each and every pay day.  On average, throughout Plaintiff’s entire  duration of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff made about $125.00 per week in base wages  after the mandatory cash deduction and kickback to Defendants.   48.  With respect to Plaintiff, Defendants are liable for the full minimum wage, and  not entitled to take advantage of the tip credits under the FLSA and/or NYLL because 1)  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at least the minimum wage for work performed at Defendant  Kang Ho Dong, 2) Defendants did not adequately inform Plaintiff of the tip credit provision, and  3) Defendants failed keep a record of Plaintiff’s cash tips.   49.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at one and one-half times the statutory  minimum wage rate for all hours worked in excess of forty per workweek.  As such, Defendants  are liable for the full overtime wage.  Defendants’ Failure to Pay Spread of Hours Pay   50.  NYLL requires Defendants to compensate their employees for an additional hour  of pay for days in which Plaintiff worked a spread-of-hours in excess of ten. N.Y. Comp. Codes  R. & Regs. Tit. 12, § 146-1.6(a).   51.  Despite the fact that Plaintiff regularly worked a spread in excess of ten hours per  day, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any additional compensation as required by New York  State regulations.  10  Defendants’ Failure to Post the Notices Required by Law   52.  The FLSA and NYLL require an employer to post and maintain in the workplace  a display, containing notices of employee’s rights to receive the minimum wage and overtime  rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate.  29 C.F.R. § 516.4; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 137-2.3.   53.  During all relevant times, Defendants failed to post in languages understood by  employees (English, Korean, and/or Spanish), in a place accessible to employees and in a  conspicuous manner, the notices of employee rights to receive minimum wage and overtime  premium as required by the FLSA and NYLL.    54.  Additionally, Defendants failed to display a copy of § 193 of the NYLL regarding  the prohibition on illegal deduction from wages.  Defendants’ Recordkeeping Violations   55.  Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiff’s hours and wages  in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c); N.Y.L.L. § 661.   56.  Upon information and belief, throughout the duration of their employment,  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Members, and the Class Members  with wage statements documenting all their hours worked or wages received.     57.  Upon information and belief, for most or all of the relevant time period,  Defendants have failed to completely and accurately document and record the number of hours  worked each day or week by Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Members, and the Class Members as  required by the FLSA and NYLL.   58.  Moreover, for most or all of the relevant time period, Defendants did not maintain  and/or falsified books and records of Plaintiff’s wages in an effort to circumvent the FLSA and  NYLL minimum wage and overtime requirements.   11  Defendants’ Failure to Provide Plaintiff with Time-Of-Hire Notices and Wage Statements   59.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff at the time of hiring, or at any subsequent  time, written notices in the Plaintiff’s native languages (English and Korean), setting forth the  rate and basis of pay, allowances claimed, pay day, employer name and contact information, and  any “doing business as” names used by the employer.    60.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff, along with each payment of wages or at  any other time, statements listing the dates of work covered by the payment, the employee’s  name, the employer’s name, the address and phone number of the employer, the rate and basis of  pay (including overtime pay), the number of regular hours worked, the number of overtime hours  worked, gross wages, deductions, allowances claimed, and net wages.    61.  Defendants have failed to inform Plaintiff who received tips that Defendants have  intended to take a deduction against Plaintiff’s earned wages for tip income, as required by the  NYLL before any deduction may be taken.   62.  Defendants have failed to inform Plaintiff that their tips would be credited  towards the payment of the minimum wage.   63.  The failures listed in the preceding paragraphs violated NYLL § 195 and  Defendants are liable for the violations.   Defendants’ Knowing and Intentional Acts   64.  Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally committed the acts alleged  herein.    65.  Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy  of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation by knowingly violating the  FLSA and NYLL.  12   66.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, and  spread-of-hours pay, and the willful and illegal deduction of Plaintiff’s wages through a kickback  scheme, would financially injure Plaintiff.    67.  Defendants intentionally falsified time and pay records to circumvent the FLSA  and NYLL requirements.   68.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   69.  Plaintiff brings the First and Third Causes of Action, pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b), on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for  Defendants as non-exempt employees, on or after the date that is three years before the filing of  the Complaint in this case, absent tolling of the limitations period, who elect to opt-in to this  action (the “FLSA Collective”).   70.  All of the work that Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective have  performed was assigned by Defendants, and/or Defendants were aware of all the work that  Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective have performed.   71.  As part of their regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully,  and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, and Defendants knew that this pattern, practice, and/or policy  would financially injure Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.  This policy and pattern or practice  includes, but is not limited to:  a.  Failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by employees as  required by the FLSA and the NYLL;  13  b.  Failing to pay employees minimum wage for all hours worked;  c.  Improperly paying the non-exempt employees a flat weekly salary that is  below the federal and state minimum wage;   d.  Failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rate for all time worked  in excess of 40 hours per week; and   e.  Failing to pay employees spread-of-hours compensation of on hour’s pay  at the minimum wage for each day in which their workday spanned more  than ten hours.    72.  Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to  pay employees the minimum wage and to pay employees performing non-exempt duties an  overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.   73.  Upon information and belief, there are numerous affected employees of  Defendants whose job duties and compensation have been substantially similar to those of the  Plaintiff, who has likewise been underpaid as a result of Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to  pay the legally required minimum wages and overtime premium.     74.  Members of the FLSA Collective would benefit from the issuance of a court- supervised notice of the instant lawsuit and the opportunity to timely join the instant lawsuit.   Members of the FLSA Collective are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable, and can be  located through Defendants’ records.  Notice should be sent to all members of the FLSA  Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Sample of Kang Ho Dong’s Weekly Schedules  attached as Exhibit B.   75.  Pursuant to the NYLL, Plaintiff brings his Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and  Seventh Causes of Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of  himself and all workers in non-exempt positions, the Class Members, who are or were employed  by Defendants within New York at any time that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in  this case, and through the entry of judgment in this case (the “Class Period”).   76.  The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   77.  Although the precise number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff, the facts  on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole control of  Defendants.   78.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   79.  There are questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the  claims of the Class, including whether Defendants had a corporate policy of: (a) failure to pay  minimum wage for all hours worked; (b) failure to pay overtime premiums when employees  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week; (c) failure to pay an additional hour’s wage at  minimum wage when employees worked shifts lasting ten or more hours; and (d) the unlawful  deduction of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ wages through a kickback scheme.   80.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims, and Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent the Class.  There are no conflicts between Plaintiff and the Class  Members, and Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced in handling class litigation.   81.  The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action are properly  maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3).  There are  questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any questions solely  affecting the individual members of the class, including but not limited to:  15  a) whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class Members within the  meaning of the NYLL;  b) whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours  worked by Plaintiff and the Class Members;  c) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where employers fail in their duty to  maintain accurate time records;  d) whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members  minimum wages for all hours worked;  e) whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members  overtime premium pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek;  f) whether Defendants illegally deducted Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ wages  through a kickback scheme;  g) whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but  not limited to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and  disbursements, and attorneys’ fees; and  h) whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members an additional  hour of pay for each hour worked in excess of ten (10) hours in one day.   82.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation – particularly in the context of wage litigation like the present  action, where individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit  in federal court against corporate Defendants.  The individual members of the Class have no  interest or capacity to bring separate actions.  Plaintiff is unaware of any other litigation  16  concerning this controversy.  It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in one case, and there are  no likely difficulties that will arise in managing the class action.  83.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   84.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective were employed  by Defendants, and Defendants were Plaintiff’s and the FLSA Collective’s employers within the  meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d).   85.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective  were engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for interstate commerce,  and/or Defendants were enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for  commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 206(a) and 207(a).   86.  Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective the applicable  minimum hourly wage was in violation of 29 U.S.C. 206(a).   87.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, as described in this Complaint, have been  willful and intentional.  Defendants knew that their nonpayment of Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective at the minimum wage would financially injure Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.   88.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with  respect to the compensation of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.     89.  Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three (3) year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 25.    17   90.  Upon information and belief, because Defendants concealed notice from Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective of their rights to receive minimum wages as required by FLSA and  implementing regulations, the claims of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective for unpaid minimum  wages, plus liquidated damages, interest, reasonably attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief  provided by 29 U.S.C. §216(b) may extend beyond the three year statute of limitations for willful  violations.     91.  Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective have suffered damages and are entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and  severally, unpaid minimum wages and an equal amount in the form of liquidated damages, as  well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), all in an amount to be determined at trial.   92.  Members of the FLSA Collective are entitled to collectively participate in this  action by choosing to “opt-in” and submitting written consents to join this action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).  93.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   94.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and the Class Members were  employed by Defendants, and Defendants were Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ employers  within the meaning of the NYLL. N.Y.L.L. §§ 2, 190, 651.   95.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the applicable minimum  hourly wage in violation of New York Minimum Wage Act, N.Y.L.L. § 652.  18   96.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective the  applicable minimum hourly wage under N.Y.L.L. was willful. Defendants knew that the  nonpayment of the minimum wage would financially injure Plaintiff and the Class Members.   97.  Due to Defendants’ violations of NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, their unpaid minimum wages and an  equal amount in the form of liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs  of the action, and prejudgment interest, all in an amount to be determined at trial. N.Y.L.L. §  98.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   99.  The FLSA requires Defendants to pay employees an overtime rate of one-and- one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for each hour of work over forty (40) hours in a  week. 29 U.S.C. § 207.   100.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  and the supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective.  101.  Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective routinely worked over forty (40)  hours in a work week.   102.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective overtime  wages at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40  hours in a workweek in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.  19  103.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective the  applicable overtime compensation under the FLSA was willful.  Defendants knew that their  nonpayment of overtime wages would financially injure Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective.  104.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to be  determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to the FLSA.  Defendants Constitute Joint Employers   Fair Labor Standards Act – Minimum Wages   Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Wages   New York Labor Law – Minimum Wages   New York Labor Law – Spread-of-Hours Pay  112.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  113.  Plaintiff and the Class Members routinely worked days with a spread of hours  greater than ten (10) hours a day.   114.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members additional compensation  of one hour’s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate for each day during which they worked  more than ten hours in violation of the N.Y.L.L. and accompanying regulations.   115.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members spread-of-hours wages  was willful. Defendants knew that nonpayment of spread-of-hours pay would financially injure  Plaintiff and the Class Members.  116.  By Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members spread-of-hours  pay, Defendants have willfully violated the NYLL Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting  New York State Department of Labor Regulations.  21  117.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants their spread-of-hour wages, liquidated damages, reasonable  attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. N.Y.L.L. §§ 198, 663(1);  New York Labor Law – Unlawful Deduction of Wages in Defendants’  Kickback Scheme  122.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  123.  Defendants have engaged in an illegal kickback scheme, improperly deducting  from Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ wages in violation of NYLL §§ 193 and 198-b.   Accordingly, Defendants are now required to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members for all  wages wrongfully deducted by Defendants.  124.  Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations have caused Plaintiff and the Class  Members irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.  125.  Due to Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff and the Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their deducted wages, damages for  unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated/punitive damages, pre and post-judgment  interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to New  York Labor Law § 663(1), et al. and § 196-d.  New York Labor Law Article 19 – Unpaid Overtime  105.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  106.  New York State Department of Labor regulations require Defendants to pay  employees an overtime rate of one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for  each hour of work over forty (40) hours in a week.   107.  The overtime wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and its supporting  regulations apply to Defendants.  108.  Plaintiff and the Class Members routinely worked over forty (40) hours in a work  week.   109.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members overtime wages at one- and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek in violation of the N.Y.L.L and implementing regulations.  20  110.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the applicable  overtime compensation under N.Y.L.L. was willful.  Defendants knew that their nonpayment of  overtime wages would financially injure Plaintiff and the Class Members.  111.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. N.Y.L.L. §§  New York Labor Law – Violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act  118.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  119.  Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally failed to supply Plaintiff and  the Class Members notice as required by NYLL Article 5, § 195, containing Plaintiff’s and the  Class Members’ rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week,  salary, piece, commission, or other; the regular pay day designated by the employer in  accordance with NYLL Article 6, § 191; the name of the employer; any “doing business as”  names used by the employer; the physical address of the employer’s main office or principal  place of business, and a mailing address if different; the telephone number of the employer; plus  such information as the commissioner deems material and necessary.  120.  Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally failed to supply Plaintiff and  the Class Members with an accurate statement of wages as required by NYLL Article 6, § 195,  containing 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; gross wages; hourly rate  or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked,  22  including overtime hours worked if applicable; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part of  the minimum wage; and net wages.  121.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) $50 per day, with a cap of $5,000 per employee, for the  wage notice violations and (2) $50 per day, with a cap of $5,000 per employee, for the pay  statement violations, as provided for by NYLL Article 6, § 198(1)-d, reasonable attorneys’ fees,  costs, injunctive and declaratory relief. 