60.  The persons in the New York Class are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  Although, the precise number of such persons is unknown, and facts upon  which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the Defendants,  there are approximately more than 40 members of the New York Class.   61.  There are questions of law and fact common to the New York Class that  predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the New York Class,  including but not limited to:  a. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation in  violation of and within the meaning of the NYLL Article 6, §190 et seq., and  the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12  N.Y.C.R.R. § 142 et seq.;   b. Whether Defendants’ policy of failing to pay Crew Members overtime at the  proper rate was instituted willfully or with reckless disregard of the law;  c. Whether Defendants’ unlawfully failed to provide accurate and timely wage  notice, pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1);  d. Whether Defendants’ unlawfully failed to provide accurate wage statements,  pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(3);  e. The proper measure of damages sustained by the New York Class  Representative and the New York Class; and  f. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from such violations in the future.   62.  The New York Class Representative fairly and adequately protects the interests of  the New York Class and has no interests antagonistic to the class.  The Plaintiff is represented by  attorneys who are experienced and competent in both class litigation and employment litigation.   64.  Further, the New York Class Representative and the New York Class have been  equally affected by Defendants’ failure to (1) pay overtime wages, (2) provide accurate wage  notices, and (3) provide accurate wage statements.  Moreover, members of the New York Class  still employed by Defendants may be reluctant to raise individual claims for fear of retaliation.   65.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  New York Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the class was a whole.   66.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class.  Plaintiff Brian Davis and the  New York Class members were subjected to Defendants’ policies, practices, programs,  procedures, protocols and plans alleged herein concerning the non-payment of overtime wages,  the failure to provide accurate wage notices and statements, and the failure to keep adequate  records.  The job duties of Plaintiff are typical of those of the class members.   67.  The New York Class Representative intends to send notice to all members of the  New York Class to the extent required by Rule 23.   69.  All of the work performed by Class Members was assigned by Defendants and/or  Defendants were aware of all the work that Plaintiff and the Class Members performed.    70.  Upon information and belief, Defendants had a policy and pattern or practice to  require Plaintiff and Class Members to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.     71.  Upon information and belief, Defendants agreed to pay each Class Member,  including Plaintiff, a certain hourly rate of pay (“regular rate”).   72.  Upon information and belief, Defendants paid each Class Member, including  Plaintiff, at an hourly rate less than the regular rate for all hours worked under 40 in the  workweek.   73.  Upon information and belief, Defendants paid each Class Member, including  Plaintiff, at an “overtime” rate of less than one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours  worked over 40 in the workweek.   74.  Upon information and belief, Defendants paid each Class Member including  Plaintiff, after their employment with Defendants concluded for that particular Fashion Week, an  additional “bonus” check that raised Plaintiffs’ average hourly rate to the regular rate.   75.  Accordingly, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members one and one- half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA  and NYLL.    77.  Defendants were or should have been aware that the FLSA and NYLL required  Defendants to pay Crew Members premium overtime pay at one and one-half time their  respective regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.   78.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members proper overtime  wages for their work in excess of 40 hours per week was willful, intentional, and in bad faith.     79.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Wage Notice Class  with accurate and proper wage notice pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1).   80.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class  with accurate wage statements pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(3).   81.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.   82.  Plaintiff Brian Davis was an employee of Defendants, working under their direct  supervision.   83.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for approximately six weeks from late  January through early March, from in or about 2007 through September 2014.    84.  Beginning in 2007, Defendants paid Plaintiff a regular rate of $30 an hour.   86.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was required to be paid overtime pay  at the statutory rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay after he had worked 40  hours in a workweek.    87.  During most workweeks between August 2009 and March 2014, Plaintiff worked  approximately between 60 and 110 hours per week.    88.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for time worked in excess of 40 hours  per week at a rate of at least one and one-half times his regular rate, from approximately August  2009 through March 2014 during his employment for Defendants.   89.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff  an accurate wage notice for new hires listing, inter alia, Plaintiff’s rate of pay and basis for that  rate, Plaintiff’s overtime pay rate, the designated pay day, and such other information as the  commissioner deems necessary.   90.  During the relevant period, Defendants required Plaintiff to sign blank wage  notices.   91.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff  with an accurate statement of wages listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages, allowances and  deductions taken, and net wages paid.   92.  Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping  requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate time sheets, payroll  records and post compliance posters.   94.  Defendants failed to post appropriate notices informing employees of federal and  state laws regarding the requirement to pay overtime premium pay to their employees  95.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective, realleges and  incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs.   96.  Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective are non-exempt employees  entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.     97.  Defendants employed Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective for  workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to compensate the Plaintiff for the time  worked in excess of 40 hours per week, at a rate of at least one and one-half times his regular  hourly rate, in violation of the requirements of Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   98.  Defendants failed to keep accurate records of time worked by Plaintiff and the  members of the FLSA Collective.     ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE FLSA COLLECTIVE  FOR FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME  AN FLSA VIOLATION   ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND   THE WAGE NOTICE AND STATEMENT CLASSES  FOR VIOLATION OF NOTICE AND RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS 