!Violat ion o(tbc New York Lab or Law!   21.  Defendants SA TINDER SHARMA and A.J!T BAINS hire emp loyees to  work as manage rs and supervisors lo participate in the day-to-day operation of each of  the Brick Lane restaurants.   24.  Although defendants SATINDER SHARMA and AJIT BAlNS provide  managers and supervisors with some authority to effectively rw1 the day-to-day  operations of the Corporate Defendants, including hiring and firing employees,  defendants SA TINDER SHARMA and AJIT BAINS must approve all crucial business  decisions, including decisions concerning the number of hours employees work, the  amount of pay that employees are entitled to receive, the manner and method by which  employees are to be paid, and whether employees are entitled to a pay raise and, if so, the  amount of the increase.   25.  In or about November 2014, defendant GAURANG GANDHI, through  autl1ority granted to him by defendants SA TINDER SHARMA and AJIT BAINS, hired  Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt dishwasher, porter, food preparer/kitchen helper, and  food deliver worker at Defendants' Indian restaurant known as Brick Lane Cuny House,  located at 1664 Third Avenue, New York, New York.   26.  Defendants occasionally instructed Plaintiff to work at their Indian  restaurant, known as Brick Lane Cuny House, located at 235 East 53'd Street, New York,  New York.   27.  Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in those capacities until approximately  on or about June 20, 2015.   29.  Throughout the entirety of his emp loyment, Plaintiff worked six (6) days  per week, and his work schedu le consisted of twelve (12) hours per day on Monday,  Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, from 11 :00 a.m. until I I :00 p.m.; and seven  (7) hours per day on Sunday. from 4:00 p.m. until 11 :00 p.m. Plaintiff normally received  one( !) sixty (60) minute meal break per day, except on Sundays.   30.  From the beginning of his employment and continuing through  approximate ly February 2015, Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages or overtime  compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid at the rate of $350 per week straight  time for all hours worked , and worked sixty-two (62) hours per week (for a regular rate  of pay of $5.65 per hour). Work performed above forty ( 40) hours per week was not paid  at the statutory rate of time a11d one-ha lf as required by state and federa l law.   31.  Beginning iu or about April 2015 and continuing through the remainder of  his emp loyment on or about June 20, 2015, Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages  or overtime compe nsation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid at the rate of $320 per  week straight time for aJI hours worked, and worked sixty-two (62) hours per week (for a  regular rat.e of pay of $5.16 per hour). Work performed above forty (40) hours per week  was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federa l  law.   32.  If Plaintiff missed a day of work, Defendan ts deducted money from his  weekly ,,,1ages.   34.  Tbe Corporate Defendants ai·e engaged in related activities performed by  the Defendants for a common business purpose.   35.  The Corporate Defendants utilized Plaintiff and other similarly situated  emp loyees in a fungible and interchangeable manner as workers in the businesses  operated by the Defendants.   36.  The Corporate Defendants each engage in related activities, namely,  providing restaurant services to the general public for profit.   37.  The Corporate Defendants shared Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees, act in the interest of each other with respec t to employees, pay their  employees by the same method, share control over the employees , and are themselves  under common control.   39.  Plaintiff's  job  performance  and respons ibilities, as well as the  responsibilities of other similarly situated employees, was controlled by one person or  group of perso ns, corpora tions, or other organizational units acting 10gether.   40.  An arrangement existed between the Corpo rate Defendants, whereby each  entity agreed to share the services of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees .   41.  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 and other similarly situated employees.   42.  Defendants lrnowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of  not paying Plain tiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate  (of time and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of lime and one- hall), in  direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and  New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   43.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of  not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employee s "spread of hours" premium  for each day that they work a shift in excess of ten ( 10) hours, in direct violation of the  New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.   45.  Plaintiff brings this action individua lly and as class representative . on  behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees who have been  or were employed by Defendants since June 29, 20 12 (the "Co llective Action Period"),  and who were compensated al rates less than the statutory minimum wage and/or less  than time and one-ha lf for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek  (the "Collective Action Members").   46.  Upon infom1ation and belief, the collect ive. action class is so numerous  that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such  persons is unknown, and the facts upon which the calculation of that number are  presently withfo the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are  more than forty (40) Collective Action Members who worked for the Defendants during  the Collective Action Per iod, most of whom would not be likely to file individual sttits  because they lack adequate financial resources. access to attorneys , or knowledge of their  claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this matter should be certified as a collective  action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 2 l6(b).   47.  Plaintiff w ill fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective  Action Members and has retained counsel that is exper ienced and competent in the fields  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.   49.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  eftfoient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all membe rs is impracticable.  Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action  Members may be relatively small, the expense and bltrden of individua l litigation make it  virtually imposs ible 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 a collect ive act ion.   63.  Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers each and every allegation and statement  conta ined in paragrap hs " I" through "62" of this Complai nt as if fully set forth herein.   64.  Al all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants were and  continue to be an employe r engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production or  goods for coorn1erce within the meaning of the fLSA , 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).  Further, Plaintiff and the Col.lective Action Members are covered individuals within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a) .   66.  Upon information and beliet: at all relevant times. each of the Corporate  Defendants has had gross revenues in excess of $500,000.   67.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members worked hours for which they  were not paid the statutory minimum wage.   68.  Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy and practice of refusing LO  pay the statuto1y minimum wage to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members for  hours worked.   69.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  minimum wages in the lawful amount tor hours worked.   70.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members were entitled to be paid at the  rate of lime and one-half for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours provided  for in the FLSA.   71.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  overtime compensation in the la1vful amount for all hours worked in excess of the  maximum hours provided for in the FLSA.   72.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have a policy and  practice of refusing Lo pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one- half LO Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess or  forty ( 40) hours per work week. which violated and continues to violate the fLSA. 29  U.S.C. §§ 20 I, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)( I) and 21 S(a).   74.  As a result of the Defendants' failure to properly record, report, cred it  and/or c-ompensa te its employees, including Plaint iff and the Colleclive Action Membe rs,  the Defendants have failed to make. keep and preserve records with respect to each of it~  employees sufficient to determine the wages , hours and other conditions and practic es of  employment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.A.§§ 20 1, et seq., includin g 29 U.S.C. §§  2 1 l{c) and 2 l5(a).   75.  Defendants  failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Mem bers of their rights under the FLSA .   76.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' violation of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are entitled to liquidated damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   77.  Due to the reckless, willfu l and unlawful acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff  and the Collective Action Members suffere d damages in an amount not presently  ascertainab le of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid over time compensatio n, an equal  amount as liqu idated damages. and prejudgment interest thereon .   78.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Memb ers are entitled to an award of  their reasonabl e attorneys' fees, cos ts and expenses, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2 16(b).  80.  Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class members within the meaning  oJ'New York La bor Law§§ 2 and 651.   81.  Defendants knowingly and willfu lly viola ted the rights of Plaintiff and  members of the Class by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for  hours worked.   82.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and the  Class membe rs by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class members overtime compensation  at the rate of time and one-half for each hour worked in excess of fo1ty ( 40) hours in a  workweek.   83.  Employers are required to pay a "spread of hours" premium of one (I)  additiona l hour's pay at the statutory minimum hourly wage rate for each day where the  spread of hours in an employee's workday exceeds ten (10) hours. New York State  Department of Labor Regulations § 146-1.6.   84.  Defendants knowingly and willfully v.iolated the rights of Plaintiff and the  Class mem bers by foiling to pay "spread of hours" premium to Plaintiff and the Class  members for each day they worked in excess of ten ( I 0) hours pursuant to New York  State Department of Labor Regulations.   85.  Detendants foiled to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and the Class  members of their rights under the New York Labor Law.   87.  Defendan ts fai led to keep true aod accurate records of hours worked by  each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid to all  employees, and other sim.ilar information in contrave ntion of New York Labor Law §  661.   88.  Defondants foiled to establish, maintain, and preserve for not less than six  (6) years payro ll records show ing the hours worke d, gross wages , deduct i.ons, and net  wages for each employee, in cont ravention of lhe New York Labo r Law § I 94( 4), and  New York State Department of Labor Regu lations § 146-2.1.   89.  At the time of their hiring, Defendants failed to notif'y Plaintiff and the  Class members of their rates of pay and their regu larly designate d payday , in  cont ravention of New York Labor Law§ 195( I).   90.  Due to the Dele ndants' New York Labor Law violations , Pla intiff and the  Class membe rs are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid minimum wages,  unpaid overtime compensatio n, and unpaid "sp read of hours" prem ium, reasonable  attorneys ' l'ees, and cos ts and disburseme nts of this action , pursuant to New York Labor  Law §§ 663( I), 198.   I Violation of the Fair Labor Sta ndards Act]  