Opinion
Index No. 650826/2020
08-06-2020
JUAN ORTEGA, IVAN NOBOA, JOHN JACHERO, JAHSAKIE BESWICK, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by SKYWORX CONTRACTING INC. and other entities affiliated or controlled by SKYWORX CONTRACTING INC., with respect to certain Public Works Projects awarded by the CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY, and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Plaintiffs v. SKYWORX CONTRACTING INC., HARJIT SINGH, P&K CONTRACTING INC., RASHEL CONSTRUCTION CORP., NELLAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, FIDELIS CONTRACTING, and JOHN DOE BONDING CO., 1 THROUGH 30, Defendants
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
DECISION AND ORDER
LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.:
Plaintiffs are scaffold workers employed by defendants on public works projects at New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings, public schools, courthouses, and government office buildings pursuant to contracts with NYCHA, the New York City School Construction Authority, and the the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Plaintiffs claim they were not paid mandated prevailing wages and supplemental benefits under those contracts and New York Labor Law § 220.
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants Skyworx Contracting Inc., its manager defendant Singh, and their managerial agents from contacting plaintiffs about this litigation, attempting to interfere with it and to coerce plaintiffs to discontinue it. They also seek to prohibit these defendants from transferring or otherwise depleting Skyworx Contracting's assets so as to render the corporation insolvent and seek to appoint a receiver to assure that the corporation remains solvent and does not dissolve.
After plaintiffs filed this motion, they filed a Second Amended Complaint. Even this amended pleading, like the pleadings that preceded it, does not claim that defendants have harassed plaintiffs about their action or retaliated against them, nor seek any relief for defendants' harassment or retaliation. Although in reply plaintiffs attest that Singh has threatened to close down Skyworx Contracting or change its name in response to plaintiffs' action, none of these allegations is on personal knowledge. Most importantly, the Second Amended Complaint nowhere alleges that defendants have threatened to close down Skyworx Contracting or change its name or attempted to transfer or otherwise deplete its assets so as to render the corporation insolvent. The Second Amended Complaint claims defendants' breach of the public works contracts, fraud in concealing plaintiffs' entitlement to prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, and violations of the Labor Law and seeks only compensatory relief for these unlawful actions and omissions.
"CPLR 6301 and 6312(a) require a link between a cause of action and a preliminary injunction. There is no such link in the case at bar." Davis v. Influx Capital Group, LLC, 183 A.D.3d 538, 538 (1st Dep't 2020). Consequently, plaintiffs will not possibly succeed on their claims that defendants are unlawfully contacting plaintiffs about this litigation, attempting to interfere with it and to coerce plaintiffs to discontinue it, or are unlawfully transferring or otherwise depleting Skyworx Contracting's assets so as to render the corporation insolvent, because plaintiffs do not allege such claims. Since plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the claims on which plaintiffs base their motion for a preliminary injunction are likely to succeed, the court denies their motion, C.P.L.R. §§ 6301, 6312(a); Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 (2005); CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v. CWCapital Invs. LLC, 168 A.D.3d 567, 567-68 (1st Dep't 2019); Weinberg v. Kaminsky, 166 A.D.3d 428, 429 (1st Dep't 2018); Lee v. 215 W. 88 St. Holdings, LLC, 106 A.D.3d 460, 461 (1st Dep't 2013), and vacates the temporary restraining order signed February 11, 2020 (Masley, J.). DATED: August 6, 2020
/s/_________
LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.