13.  This action is properly maintainable as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA  29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and as a Class Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   14.  This action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiffs and a class consisting of  similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants as electrical workers or in other  electrical related work.   16.  The putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The size of the putative class is believed to be in excess of sixty (60) employees.    17.  The questions of law and fact common to the putative class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual members. These questions of law and fact include, but are not  limited to: (1) whether the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, at the rate of one and one  half times the regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any given  week, (2) whether Defendant kept adequate and proper records, and (3) whether Defendants  provided Plaintiffs with the legally required wage notices.   18.  The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the putative class  members. The Named Plaintiffs, like all members of the putative class, were subject to  Defendants’ policies and willful practice of refusing to pay employees overtime compensation.  The Plaintiffs and putative class members have thus sustained similar injuries as a result of the  Defendants’ actions.   19.  Named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests  of the putative class. Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in complex wage and  hour collective and class action litigation.   21.  Named Plaintiff Dennis performed electrical work for Defendants from  approximately May 2015 through April 2016.    22.  Plaintiff Dennis typically worked approximately six (6) to seven (7) days per  week, from approximately 7:00 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. approximately five (5) days per week, and  from approximately 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. two (2) day per week.   23.  As a result, Plaintiff Dennis regularly worked over forty (40) hours in a week.    24.  During his employment, Plaintiff Dennis was paid approximately $20.00 per hour  regardless of how many hours he worked.     25.  When Plaintiff Dennis worked more than 40 hours in a week, he was not paid  overtime compensation in an amount equal to one and one half times his regular rate of pay.    26.  Named Plaintiff Duane Foxe performed electrical work for Defendants from  approximately August 2015 through November 2015.    27.  Plaintiff Foxe typically worked from approximately 7:00 a.m. until between 7:00  p.m. to 9:00 p.m, approximately five (5) to seven (7) days per week.    28.  As a result, Plaintiff Foxe regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week.    29.  During his employment, Plaintiff Foxe was paid between approximately $15.00 to  $18.00 per hour regardless of how many hours he worked.    30.  When Plaintiff Foxe worked more than 40 hours in a week, he was not paid  overtime compensation in an amount equal to one and one half times his regular rate of pay.    31.  Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully  evaded the recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable State law  by failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets and payroll records.    33.  Upon information and belief, when Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants, they were  not provided with any notification whatsoever indicating their regular or overtime rate of pay.    34.  Upon information and belief, during Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants,  Plaintiffs were not provided with any wage statements that reflected the hours worked, the  amount being paid, the regular or overtime rates of pay.    35.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ co-workers, like Plaintiffs, also were not  provided with wage notifications at the time of hire or wage did not receive wage statements or  wage notices.   36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Patrick Kenelly is an owner and director  of Defendants AGF and AF Electrical and (i) had the power to hire and fire employees; (ii)  supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (iii)  determined the rate and method of payment for employees; and (iv) maintained employment  records.    37.  Upon information and belief, Defendants are part of a single integrated enterprise  that jointly employed Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at all relevant times.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Kenelly dominated the day-to-day  operating decisions of Defendants AGF and AF Electrical, made major personnel decisions for  Defendants AGF and AF Electrical, and had complete control of the alleged activities of  Defendants AGF and AF Electrical which give rise to the claims brought herein.     40.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Kenelly, in his capacity as president,  actively participated in the unlawful method of payment for employees of Defendants AGF and  AF Electrical. Upon information and belief, the Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative  class performed labor for the benefit of and at the direction of Defendant Kenelly.    41.  Upon information and belief, Defendants are a single and/or joint employer in that  they share a common business purpose and ownership, maintain common control, oversight and  direction over the operations of the work performed by Plaintiffs, including payroll practices.   Upon information and belief, each Defendant has had substantial control of Plaintiffs’ working  conditions and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.   42.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ operations are interrelated and unified.   43.  Upon information and belief, during all relevant times, Defendants shared a  common management, and were centrally controlled and/or owned by Defendants.   44.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants had the power to  determine employee policies, including but not limited to policies governing the payment of  overtime compensation to employees.   45.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales made or  business done is not less than $500,000.    46.  Upon information and belief, Defendants engage in interstate commerce,  including handling and working with goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for  interstate commerce such as construction materials, equipment and tools.   48.  Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C § 207, “no  employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or  in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce  or in the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such  employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a  rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”    49.  Further, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), an “employer” includes “any person  acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and includes  a public agency, but does not include any labor organization (other than when acting as an  employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.”   50.  Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class are employees within  the meaning contemplated in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §203.   51.  Defendants are “employer[s]”, within the meaning contemplated in the FLSA, 29  55.  Named Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the proceeding  paragraphs.   56.  12 NYCRR §142-2.2 requires that “[a]n employer shall pay an employee for  overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate.”     57.  New York Labor Law § 663, provides that “[i]f any employee is paid by his  employer less than the wage to which he is entitled under the provisions of this article, he may  recover in a civil action the amount of any such underpayments, together with costs and such  reasonable attorney’s fees.”   58.  Named Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and supporting  Regulations.   59.  Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL and supporting  Regulations.    60.  Named Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class worked more than forty  hours per week while working for Defendants.   61.  Named Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class did not receive overtime  compensation in an amount equal to one and one half times their regular rates of pay for the  hours worked after the first forty hours of work in a week.   62.  Consequently, by failing to pay to Named Plaintiffs and the other members of the  putative class overtime compensation for work they performed after the first forty hours worked  in a week, Defendants violated New York Labor Law § 663 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2.    64.  Named Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding  paragraphs.   65.  Pursuant to Section 195(1) of the NYLL, an employer is required to provide its  employees at the time of hiring a notice containing information, such as, “the 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 . . .; [and] the name of the employer . . . . For  all employees who are not exempt from overtime compensation . . ., the notice must sate the  regular hourly rate and overtime rate of pay.”   66.  Pursuant to Section 198-1(b) of the NYLL, an employee that does not receive a  wage notification, as required by NYLL § 195(1), may bring a civil action to recover damages of  $250 for each work day that the violation occurs or continues to occur, but not to exceed $5,000.   67.  At the time of hire, Defendants did not provide Named Plaintiffs or members of  the putative class with a wage notification informing Plaintiffs of, among other things, (1) their  regular rates of pay, (2) their overtime rates of pay, (3) the basis of their rates of pay (e.g.,  whether they were hourly employees), or (4) the regular pay day designated by Defendant.   68.  Defendants violated NYLL § 195(1) by failing to provide Named Plaintiffs and  members of the putative class with wage notifications containing the information required by  NYLL § 195, et seq.   69.  The failure of Defendants to provide Named Plaintiffs and members of the  putative class with wage notifications in violation of NYLL § 195 was willful.   71.  Named Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding  paragraphs.   72.  Pursuant to Section 195(3) of the New York Labor Law, an employer is required  to furnish each employee with a statement with every payment of wages that identifies, among  other things, whether the employee is paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,  commission, or in another manner. For employees that are not exempt from overtime  compensation under New York state law or regulation, such wage statement must also include  “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.”   73.  Pursuant to Section 198-1(d) of the New York Labor Law, an employee that does  not receive a wage statement, as required by NYLL § 195(3), may bring a civil action to recover  damages of $50 for each work day that the violation occurs or continues to occur, but not to  exceed $5,000.   74.  Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class did not receive any wage  statements from the Defendants.   75.  Defendants violated NYLL § 195(3) by failing to provide Named Plaintiffs and  members of the putative class with wage statements containing the information required by  AGAINST DEFENDANTS --  NEW YORK OVERTIME COMPENSATION LAW   AGAINST DEFENDANT --  FLSA OVERTIME COMPENSATION   NEW YORK § 195(3) WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATION   NEW YORK § 195(1) WAGE NOTICE VIOLATION  