(Illegal Deductions, New York Labor Law, Article 19 § 193 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.10(a))  120.  Plaintiffs, the FLSA Plaintiffs, and the New York Class repeat, reiterate, and  reallege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully  set forth herein.  121.  In violation of NYLL § 193, Defendants unlawfully deducted wages from Plaintiffs  and Class Members, by requiring superintendents to spend their own money on work-related  expenses which were required for the performance and completion of mandated work.   122.  By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members  for reimbursement of unlawful deductions, plus liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and  costs, and any other appropriate relief.  24.  There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants  who have been similarly underpaid in violation of the FLSA, and who would benefit from the  issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and an opportunity to join.   25.  The total number of persons who are eligible to join the FLSA Collective Action  identified above, including both current and former employees over the relevant period, is  unknown, and facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the  sole control of Defendants. Upon information and belief there are at least forty (40) FLSA  members, and there could be significantly more.   26.  The precise number of FLSA collective action members should be readily  available from a review of the Defendants’ personnel, scheduling, time and payroll records,  and from input received from the collective action as part of the notice and “opt-in” process  provided by 29 U.S.C § 216(b).  27.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf all others similarly  situated class of persons under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), defined to include:   All superintendents and handymen, employed by Defendants, during the  relevant statutory period who: (1) worked in excess of forty hours per week  without receiving overtime compensation at the mandatory statutory rate;  (2) were not issued accurate and/or complete pay stubs/wage statements on  each payday containing the information required by N.Y. Lab. Law §  195(3); and/or (3) were not issued accurate and/or complete pay notices  upon hiring and annually thereafter, containing the information required by  N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1) (hereinafter, the “New York Class”).   29.  Commonality/Predominance: There is a well-defined community of interest among  the Rule 23 Class members and common questions of both law and fact predominate in the action  over any questions affecting individual members. These common legal and factual questions  include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, the New York Class members  wages for each hour worked;  b. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the New York Class the  statutorily-mandated rate of pay of one-and-one-half times the regular rate  of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week;  c. Whether Defendants violated the NYWTPA by failing to provide Plaintiffs  and the New York Class with a written statement upon hiring, and annually,  as required by NYLL § 195(1);  d. Whether Defendants violated the NYWTPA by failing to provide Plaintiffs  and the New York Class with sufficiently detailed wage statements with  each payment, as required by NYLL § 195(3);  e. Whether Defendants took unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs' and the New  York Class’ wages, by requiring them to pay the cost of tools, supplies, and  cellular phones which were required for the maintenance of the buildings;  f. Whether Defendants should be required to pay compensatory damages,  attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest for violating the NYLL; and  g. Whether Defendants’ violations were willful.    31. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fully and adequately protect the interests of the Rule  23 York Class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are qualified and experienced  in the litigation of wage-and-hour class actions.    32. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy because, inter alia, it is economically unfeasible for  the Rule 23 Class members to prosecute individual actions of their own given the relatively small  amount of damages at stake for each individual along with the fear of reprisal by their employer.   33. The case will be manageable as a class action because Defendants should have  payroll systems that will allow the wage-and-hour facts and damages issues in the case to be  determined with relative ease. Because the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative (c)(4),  are satisfied in the case, class certification is appropriate.    34. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making relief, including declaratory and/or injunctive relief, appropriate for the Class.  35. Plaintiffs bring FLSA and NYLL claims on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated Plaintiffs (“Class Members”) employed by Defendants who were denied lawful  wages.   37. Upon information and belief, Defendants have employed more than forty (40)  superintendents and handymen during the statutory period.   38. As superintendents, the job duties of Plaintiffs and of the Class Members included,  inter alia: (i) repairs including painting and roofing; (ii) fumigating the apartments; (iii) minor  electrical work; (iv) maintaining building boilers; (v) checking hallways for cleanliness and  maintenance issues; (vi) tiling; (vii) minor plumbing; (viii) minor carpentry work; (ix) cleaning  inside and outside the buildings; and (x) addressing tenants’ concerns.    39.  Although the Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to work more than 40  hours per week, the Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs Class Members overtime  wages at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of  40 per work week.   40.  Significantly, Plaintiffs were routinely assigned handyman “side jobs” which  frequently required work in the evenings and on weekends. However, Plaintiffs and Class  Members were never compensated at the overtime rate for these “side jobs”.   41.  At all relevant times, the Defendants failed to keep complete and/or accurate  records of the hours worked by and wages paid to the Plaintiffs. In fact, Defendants have  systematically underreported the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and Class Members, and  effectively omitted their overtime hours from any payroll records, in order to evade their  obligations under the FLSA and the NYLL.     43.  Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and all similarly situated  class members with accurate wage statements with each payment, as required by the NYWTPA.  Likewise, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and all similarly situated class members with  accurate wage notices upon hiring, and annually thereafter, as required by the NYWTPA.   44.  Upon information and belief, Defendants' unlawful conduct as described herein is  pursuant to a policy or practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by violating the FLSA and  46.  Plaintiff Mr. P. Huitzil was employed as a building superintendent.  He worked for  a property owned and/or managed by Defendants located at 1 The Boulevard, New Rochelle,  New York, from on or about March 2003 to May 5, 2019.    47.  During the course of his employment, Mr. P. Huitzil’s resided in a basement  apartment in the building located at 1 The Boulevard. Defendants required Mr. P. Huitzil to be  on-call to deal with any situation that arose in the building twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven  (7) days a week.      49.  Additionally, Mr. P. Huitzil was required to perform handyman assignments,  outside of his regularly scheduled hours, consisting of nonstandard repairs and renovations in the  buildings owned and/or managed by Defendants, including inter alia:   a. 18 May Street, New Rochelle, New York;   b. 32 Coligni Ave, New Rochelle, New York;   c. 1920 Osborne PL, Bronx, New York;   d. 2525 Aqueduct Ave, Bronx, New York;   e. 560 Audubon Avenue, New York, New York;   f. 2533 Aqueduct Ave, Bronx, New York;   g. 1916 Palmer Ave, Larchmont, New York; and   h. 45 Mitchell Pl, White Plains, New York.     50.  Defendants regularly directed Mr. P Huitzil to perform handyman “side jobs” in  these buildings and frequently asked him to perform and complete these assignments outside of  his scheduled work hours.    51.  As a result, Mr. P. Huitzil’s regularly worked six (6) days per week, working at  least fifty-two (52) hours per week in total—which equals approximately (12) hours per week of  overtime work.   53.  Thus, Defendants failed to pay Mr. P. Huitzil for some of his working hours, and  also failed to pay him overtime compensation at the mandatory statutory rate for all hours worked  in excess of 40 in a work week.    54.  Further, Mr. P. Huitzil was required to spend his own money on work-related  expenses, including inter alia: (i) cellular telephone expenses; (ii) supplying his own tools and  supplies to complete mandated work; and (iii) paying laborers to assist him with completing  mandated work.   Occasionally, Defendants would to reimburse Mr. P. Huitzil for some of these  expenses.    55.  Throughout the duration of his employment, Defendants failed to provide Mr. P.  Huitzil with the required written wage notice upon hiring, and annually thereafter. Likewise,  Defendants failed to provide Mr. P. Huitzil and the required wage statements, containing accurate  information about his wages, in violation of the NYWTPA.   56.  Mr. P. Huitzil has spoken to other superintendents who are employed by  Defendants, and they advised him that, they too, were denied lawful overtime wages.    57.  Mr. P. Huitzil has been designated as the class representatives for the FLSA  Collective Action and the New York Class.  Rogelio Huitzil (“Mr. R. Huitzil”)   58.  Plaintiff Mr. R. Huitzil was employed as a building superintendent at a building  owned and/or managed by Defendants, located at 1920 Osborne Place, Bronx, New York, from  on or about January of 2000 to September 16, 2016.   60.  As a superintendent, Mr. R. Huitzil’s duties included, inter alia: (i) minor repairs  including painting and roofing; (ii) fumigating the apartments; (iii) minor electrical work; (iv)  maintaining building boilers; (v) checking hallways for cleanliness and maintenance issues; (vi)  tiling; (vii) minor plumbing; (viii) minor carpentry work; (ix) cleaning inside and outside the  buildings; and (x) addressing tenants’ concerns.    61.  Additionally, Mr. R. Huitzil was required to perform handyman assignments,  outside of his regularly scheduled hours, consisting of nonstandard repairs and renovations in the  building and in other buildings owned and/or managed by Defendants, including inter alia:   a. 2525 Aqueduct Avenue, Bronx, New York;   b. 2523 Aqueduct Avenue, Bronx, New York; and   c. 502 Audubon Avenue, New York, New York.     62.  As a result, Mr. R. Huitzil’s worked an average of sixty-five (65) hours per week  in total—which equals twenty-five (25) hours per week of overtime work.   63.  However, in a ploy to circumvent overtime provisions of the FLSA and NYLL,  Defendants did not utilize any time tracking device or system to keep track of the hours Mr. R.  Huitzil worked.  Instead they created a fiction that Mr. P. Huitzil only worked forty (40) hours  per week, and paid him a flat rate for forty hours each week, regardless of how many hours he  actually worked.   64.  Thus, Defendants unlawfully and systematically failed to pay Mr. R. Huitzil  overtime compensation at the mandatory statutory rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a  work week.    66.  Further, Mr. R. Huitzil was required to spend his own money on work-related  expenses, including inter alia: (i) cellular telephone expenses; (ii) supplying his own tools and  supplies to complete mandated work; and (iii) paying laborers to assist him with completing  mandated work.       67.  Additionally, throughout the duration of his employment, Defendants failed to  provide Mr. R. Huitzil with the required written wage notice upon hiring, and annually thereafter.  Likewise, Defendants failed to provide Mr. R. Huitzil and the required wage statements, containing  accurate information about his wages, in violation of the NYWTPA.   68.  Mr. R. Huitzil has spoken to other superintendents who are employed by  Defendants, and they advised him that, they too, were denied lawful overtime wages.   69.  Mr. R. Huitzil has been designated as the class representatives for the FLSA  Collective Action and the New York Class.  Francisco Diaz (“Diaz”)   71.  As a superintendent, Mr. Diaz’ duties include, inter alia: (i) minor repairs including  painting and roofing; (ii) fumigation of the apartments; (iii) minor electrical work; (iv) maintaining  building boilers; (v) checking hallways for cleanliness and maintenance issues; (vi) tiling; (vii)  minor plumbing; (viii) minor carpentry work; (ix) cleaning inside and outside the buildings; and  (x) addressing tenants’ concerns.    72.  Additionally, Mr. Diaz was routinely required to perform handyman “side jobs”  outside his regularly scheduled work hours, consisting of nonstandard repairs and renovations in  his assigned buildings.     73.  As a result of Mr. Diaz’s duties and responsibilities, he worked an average of sixty- five (65) hours per week in total—which equals twenty-five (25) hours per week of overtime work.   74.  However, in a ploy to circumvent overtime provisions of the FLSA and NYLL,  Defendants did not utilize any time tracking device or system to keep track of the hours Mr. Diaz  worked.  Instead they created a fiction that Mr. Diaz only worked forty (40) hours per week, and  paid him a flat rate for forty hours each week, regardless of how many hours he actually worked.   75.  Thus, Defendants unlawfully and systematically failed to pay Mr. Diaz overtime  compensation at the mandatory statutory rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.    76.  Further, Mr. Diaz was required to spend his own money on work-related expenses,  including inter alia: (i) cellular telephone expenses; (ii) supplying his own tools and supplies to  complete mandated work; and (iii) paying laborers to assist him with completing mandated work.       78.  Mr. Diaz has spoken to other superintendents who are employed by Defendants,  and they advised him that, they too, were denied lawful overtime wages.   79.  Mr. Diaz has been designated as the class representatives for the FLSA Collective  Action and the New York Class.  Francisco Diaz III (“Mr. Diaz III”)   80.  Plaintiff Mr. Diaz III was employed as a building superintendent, at a property  owned and/or managed by Defendants, located at 32 Coligni Ave, New Rochelle, New York, from  on or about July of 2015 to on or about August 2018.   81.  During the course of his employment, Mr. Diaz III resided in a basement in the  building located at 32 Coligni Ave. Defendants required Mr. Diaz III to be on-call to deal with any  situation that arose in the building twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week.    82.  As a superintendent, Mr. Diaz III’s duties included, inter alia: (i) minor repairs  including painting and roofing; (ii) fumigating the apartments; (iii) minor electrical work; (iv)  maintaining building boilers; (v) checking hallways for cleanliness and maintenance issues; (vi)  tiling; (vii) minor plumbing; (viii) minor carpentry work; (ix) cleaning inside and outside the  buildings; and (x) addressing tenants’ concerns.    83.  Mr. Diaz performed his superintendent duties by working early morning and late  afternoon shifts during the week, and full days on the weekend, averaging forty-five (45) hours–  which equals to two (5) hours per week of overtime work.   85.  During this peak period, Mr. Diaz III’s hours changed significantly and required  him to work an average of seventy-five (75) hours per week in total—which equals twenty-five  (25) hours per week of overtime work.   86.  However, in a ploy to circumvent overtime provisions of the FLSA and NYLL,  Defendants did not utilize any time tracking device or system to keep track of the hours Mr. Diaz  III worked.  Instead they paid him a flat rate each week, regardless of how many hours he actually  worked.   87.  Thus, Defendants unlawfully and systematically failed to pay Mr. Diaz III overtime  compensation at the mandatory statutory rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.    88.  Further, Mr. Diaz III was required to spend his own money on work-related  expenses, including inter alia: (i) cellular telephone expenses; (ii) supplying his own tools and  supplies to complete mandated work; and (iii) paying laborers to assist him with completing  mandated work.       89.  Additionally, throughout the duration of his employment, Defendants failed to  provide Mr. Diaz III with the required written wage notice upon hiring, and annually thereafter.  Likewise, Defendants failed to provide Mr. Diaz III and the required wage statements, containing  accurate information about his wages, in violation of the NYWTPA.   90.  Mr. Diaz III has spoken to other superintendents who are employed by Defendants,  and they advised him that, they too, were denied lawful overtime wages.   92.  In the summer of 2018, Mr. Diaz III complained to his supervisor, Alfonso De  Jesus, that he was owed wages for the long hours that he worked each week, without adequate  compensation.     93.  On or about June of 2018, Mr. Diaz III followed up on his complaint to find out if  De Jesus would provide him with the wages he was entitled to as a matter of law.    94.  Within a week, Mr. Diaz III received a joint request from Hayco’s principal, A.  Hay and property manager, De Jesus, asking him to waive his overtime rights – a request that is  expressly unlawful. Moreover, as per the request, Mr. Diaz III was asked to agree to a new policy  whereby employees would only receive overtime pay only if they had received prior authorization  for the overtime work.    95.  In the two weeks that followed, De Jesus persistently demanded that Mr. Diaz III  sign the document. However, Mr. Diaz III adamantly refused to do so. In fact, Mr. Diaz III  submitted a written response in which he explained that he did not fully understand what he was  being asked to sign, and therefore wished to meet in person with Hay so that they could discuss.  Mr. Diaz III understood that Defendants were blaming him for never having reported his overtime  hours, when this had never been the company’s policy. Thus, Mr. Diaz III very much wanted a  meeting to discuss the matter further. This meeting never happened.    97.  Plaintiff Mr. Montero was employed as a building superintendent for Defendants.    From on or about December of 2013 to on or about July of 2016, Mr. Montero worked for two  properties owned and/or managed by Defendants:   a. 2525 Aqueduct, Bronx, New York; and  b. 2523 Aqueduct, Bronx, New York.   98.  Mr. Montero resided in a basement apartment in the building located at 2525  Aqueduct, Bronx, New York. Defendants required Mr. Montero to be on-call to deal with any  situation that arose in the building twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week.      Perfecto Huitzil (“Mr. P. Huitzil.”)  