Opinion
Nos. 17636 17637 Index No. 159883/16 Case Nos. 2022-00368 2022-04365
04-04-2023
Lyudmyla Konstantynovska et al., Respondents, v. Caring Professionals, Inc., Appellant.
Jackson Lewis P.C., Melville (Noel P. Tripp of counsel), for appellant. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna M. Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
Jackson Lewis P.C., Melville (Noel P. Tripp of counsel), for appellant.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna M. Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered January 14 and September 16, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and approved the form and publication of notice of the class action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court providently granted class certification, as plaintiffs submitted evidence that they worked with at least 40 other home health aides, and that defendant systematically paid them and the putative class members for only 13 hours of their 24-hour shifts, without providing them proper meal breaks or uninterrupted periods of sleep (see Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 152 [2019]). Plaintiffs also submitted affidavits, testimony, and payroll records showing that they and the putative class members were not paid the minimum wage, overtime wages, or other wage benefits due to defendant's policies (see Kurovskaya v Project O.H.R. [Office for Homecare Referral], Inc., 194 A.D.3d 612 [1st Dept 2021]). Claims of systemic wage violations, such as the ones presented here, are "particularly appropriate for class certification" (id. at 613, quoting Andryeyeva at 184; see also Lavrenyuk v Life Care Servs., Inc., 198 A.D.3d 569 [1st Dept 2021]; Guzman v Americare, Inc., 202 A.D.3d 504 [1st Dept 2022]).
Defendant's arguments disputing the merits of plaintiffs' claims are unavailing at this juncture, as the evidence is sufficient to show that their causes of action are "neither spurious nor sham" (Bloom v Cunard Line, 76 A.D.2d 237, 241 [1st Dept 1980]). The differing amounts of damages to which each individual class member may be entitled does not undermine commonality or weigh substantially against class certification (see Brown v Mahdessian, 206 A.D.3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2022]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.