Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs. Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs. Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 33390(U) October 6, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506155/2016 Judge: Ingrid Joseph Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 506155/2016 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 Atan LA.S. Tt)rm, Paii 83ofthe Sup1'eme Cotitt of the State of New York, held in and. for the·Counly of Kings, atthe-Corn1house~ at,Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 6th day of October 2022. PRESENT: HON. INGRID JOSEPH, J.S,C SUPREME COURT OFTHE STA TE OFNEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----. ----------·-------- ·________ -----.--•---- ---- ---------------X RAISA MELAMEI), GAL YN A MALYARUK, TAMARA BADZIO a,nd LARYSA SALO, individually and ;on behalfof all others similarly situated, Index No.: 5(}6155/2016 Plaintiffs, -against- AMER!CARE CERTiFlED SPECIALSERVICES, INC. and AMERICARE, INC., Defendants. ------------------· ---- ·--- ··------------------- .· --------------- -----X The followinrr e-filed papets considered herein: Notice of Motion:/Affidavit/Affirmations/Exhibits _ __ Opposing Aftidavit/Affirmatiqn._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Papers Numbered .13-18 20.- 34:36_ In this nfattcr; Plaintiffs, RAISA MELAMED, GAL YNA MALYARUK, TAMARA BADZIO arn:l LAR YSA SALO, individually and 011 behalf of memb~rs of' the p1;•po~ed class, move by Notice ofMotion (Motion Sequence 11}, for Class. Certification pursu_ant to CPLR §§ 901 and 902 for all Home Health Aides ("HHA 's") wbo worked twenty;. four (24) hour shifts from September 27, 2005 to present. Plaintiffs, and the pi..itative,class,members; who were employed as hoine health a,ides, for Defendants, AMERICARE CERTIFIED SPECIAL SERVICES, INC; .and AMER.ICARE, INC., seek to recover damages• for underpayment of mi:n1n1um~ overtfrr~e~ and spi;-ead~o f;..hou.rs .yages. [* 1] 1 of 8 --:=L_=_=_=_=_~_-_-_--_==_=_=-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-""""'.'"-_-_-_ FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01-_-_-_ PM-_-_-.-J--,--~ NYSCEF DOC. . NO. 337 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 -·- ~---- RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 ~- pur~tiant to the New YQrk Labor Law and New York De.partnten t of.Labor wa~e orders 'and tegtilations for Vv.ork ·perfo.m1ed during twenty-four hour shifts . The court, by order dated O~ce1,nber S, 2019; consolidated the instan t h1atter, initially' captioned Tatnar:a Bc1c/zio, et al v. Americ(11.•? Certt/tfdSpe,;:.ia f Services1 Inc. et uf1, with a previously filed action, Melamed, et al. V; Amedcare,; et al.;. (Inde x No. 503'171/2012), Prior to corisolidatiori, Defendants inthe Mefqm(':!dmatte r move d to. dism iss Plain tifff a.mended complainti andP iainti ffs cross tnove d for an ordetgrantii;1g cJass certification. The court (Schn1idt, J.), by order dated DeC! ember 11, 2014t•2014 dedsi on"), denied the Defe ndan ts, moti onfo its entirety and deriied.Pl:ainttff's cross ·moti01i as:prei11ature. wHh.Ieave .~o renew up.qn thrther disco very (NYS CEF Doc. No! 24). Al.so pre-c onsol idatio n, the Defendants in this matter move d to disin iss Plaintiffs Tamara Badz io and Larysa Salo cause s,of action, as time~ baLTed by the six-:year $tatute of liinitatio.ns unde r Secti on 198(3) of the Labor Law. A prede cesso r justic e.ren dered a. decision and oi:der denying the.Defendants' motion (Solo monf J., .June 15, 2017 } On ~pp.eal,. the Appe llate Division, Seco nd Department affirm ed the Supr eme Cout t;s June 15, 2017 decisioi1 and order, holdi ng that' Plaintiffs Badz io ~ild Salo''s claiins pt:ior to April l.8,:2010 andJa :nuar y 30, 2011,-tespectively, were.tolle d in accordance with a cuhnina.tio11 of tolling rµ.les s~t forth in:American P{pe & Cons tr. Co. v Ut4h, 414 US 538 [1974], c,·own, Cork & Seal Co'. v Park.er~ 46~ US 345, 350 [1983], and China.Agri.'tecb,. J11c. vRes h, 138'8 .Ct. 1800 (2018). As amended to inclu de ·causes .of act.ion for .the recovery -of damages for underpayment of wages for plai~1tiff, Larysa Safo, ·1 2 [* 2] 2 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 The parties reque sted varied relief thereafter,_including Defen dants reques t for an ordert ~mpor arily stayhr g the fostanLaction, or, altern atiyely a ptotec tive order, p-ending the outcome of other, unrela ted class actiQh lawsuits2 that were appea led mid awaitin,g determinations from the. Appellate.Division, Secon d Depar tment , Plaint iffs, in the intedm, sought orders ·compelling the D¢fen dantst o.prov ide class- wide payrol l daia anc;l ·other discovery. These matters, amon~ other 1ssues1 Were addres sed in multip le orders that ilJitiaflr imposed tempo rary stays, t,li.eIT addres sed outstanding discoverY,:·\:e )at~d inatters (NYSCEF Document Nutnbers--'28, 44, 47, 105, 134, 13·5, 137, 138~ 193, and 220). On Nove1nber 20, 2020, the presidingju.stice 111 Jhe Centralized Comp fiancé Part (Knipel, J.) issued an 9rder addressing Plaint iffs motion to coinpel and for tlw· imposition of ~ai1cti9hs as follows: '·Defe ndant shall provid e the .payroU record s soug]:lt, with person al identifying inform ation ( empioyees hatne, addr~ss and social ·security 1_rnrribers.only) redact ed. Defen dants. reques t for 1'epres¢nta_tive sampth,g is d~nied. Said docurhents to be serv~d by February 11,. ;2{.)21, or the. issue of class certifi cation shall be deem:ed resolv ed ii1 plain~iffs favor, pursuant to 3-126(1 ), witho ut the need .for a furthe r nioti'on. This is .a. selfex ecutir ig orde1·," (NYS CEF Doc. No, In th~ instant motion, neither party discloses wheth er Defen dants provi_ ded payroll records in accord_ance with the November 20,- 2020 order, .and th~r.e i$ no eviden ce that the order '.!Andry~yeva v.NewYorkHea1ti1 Care~Iric.i 153 AD3d 1216. [7d Pept2 0l7]revd, 33 NY.3d 1.5212019] (Supreme Co.urt,.Kings County, Index No:.:14309/20l 1) ru1d More110 v.Future Care IJeaU1 Servs., Inc-., .J 5.3. AD3d .1254, te;vd 3 [* 3] 3 of 8 --;: ::== === === === ==- === === === === =,-- ---· INDEX---NO. 506155/2016 -~-- ---FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 has been reverse d, vacated or modified: Consequently,_ the issue of class c·ertific atiort would alrea9y be r~s.olveo ii1 Plainti ffs' favor, ,if r:>efenom,ts failed to comply with the:the. self-executing, November 2020 otder. If the i~sue of._dass certificatiori is outstanding, the-decision and ord·er on Plainti ff's motion is as iblfows: ft i~ Pl_aintiffs' burden to establish thatthe requirements of CPLR article 9 are- satisficd·(Madd/cks v Big City Props., Ll,;C, 34..NYJ-d 116, 121(20 19]; ·Cqoper v Sfe·epy's, LLC, 120 AD3d 742,743 [2d D~pt 20 l4J). The five prerequisites .are muneros1ty, commonality, typicality, -adequacy ofrepr esenta tion and superiority (CPLR ·901,- City ofNe.w Tork v .Maul, 14-NY 3d499 po·10]). Such require ments are to be liheraliy construed in keepin g with the goals_ of CPLR -article 9 (Andryeyva v New :York He.al th Cqr(!., bw,_.33 NY3d 152 [2-019] cWng City of New' Yo;~kv Maul, 13 N:Y3d4 99~ 506 [201 OJ), ''So as to allow tor.the adjudication. 9fclaim s that would not be econotnicaily · litigab1e except by means ofa class-action .(And1J,eyva•. at 184. quoting $2 NY Jur 2d, _ Parties § 254 ). In thi_s inatter3. the criteda for .class certification was.pr evious ly.disc ussed in the 20 i 4 decision, wherein- tt was-determined that .five of the six statuto ry require inents set forth in CPLR § 901 were sadsfie d 1. despite scant di$covery and the lim,ite( l information that was availab le to Plainti ffs' counseJ at the. time. The predec essor justice fom1d that JThe c:ase captione9 Melamed, -eiat; v. Ame.ricare, et al., (Index No. 503171/2012) was. consolid~ted with the in~tant matter; -4 [* 4] 4 of 8 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 adequacy of representation was the. only eleme nrlack ing. Whi.le the '.2014 decisi on is not biIJ.ding, this com1, after ·corisidcration of tile docum ents submitted ,and ·the· ~rg:mnents ,presented, .c91ict1ts with the prede cessor justic e's reason ing. There is no bright lirie test for detem1ining wheth er the requite1ne1 1tof nmtier~sity has been. m¢t; rather , each ·C.c;\Se depen ds on the partic ufar oircumsfaJ;tc es ofthe prop_osed class (Friar v Vanguard Holding Co,p., 78 AP2d 83;96 [2d Dept 1980]). Appe~ls ha~ noted. that the Legisl ature contemplp.te4 ~la_sses with !.lS few as The court of 18 memb ers (Eorden-v 400.E. 55St. A.$iwc;, L.P.,'.24WY3d 382., 399 [2014 ]) C~msi st~rtt with the 1 :findings in the 2014 decision and eviden ce $llbmitted in, $.Upport of the instan t ni.otion, this court finds that the num:ber of home.health aides who perfortned 24-ho ur shifts during requis·ite peri9.d m11y excee d'2,00 0 the members, ,vell.b eyond the numerosity thresh old. Tn the 2014 de¢isi•n, .it was also determ ined that the el.ein.ents qf comm onalicy, and predo'miimnce were satisfi ed, notWithstandJng the Defen dants' argum ent that th~ issues qf lfabilil:Y and damages vaded too widely among class memb ers. This. c.ourt reJects the same argum ent.as presen ted by Defen dants in oppos ition to the instan t motio n; The· Court of Appea ls, in Andryeyeva v New York HeaithQqfe, Inc., 33 NY3d i 52 [2019] , held thafth e ,fact tha:t .damages inay vary by class memb er is. not dispos itive oh the issue of conimonality. The-C ourt reitera ted thanh e legisla ture enacted CPLR '§ 901 with a specific allowance- for class-a ctions iffcas.es where damag es cliffer ed atrtcing plainti ffs (IdJ The ;1.ndry.eyeva Court also recognized that "the amountofdam:age s suffered: by· each dass meinb ertypi cally yari,~s from indivi dual to ittdiVidual but d.eterm ined that fact .5 [* 5] 5 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 wHI not preverit .a class a.ction from going forward -if.the important l~gai or factual. issues involvii1g, Ilability are cotmncm to th~ class (4-ndryeyeya v New York Health Care, Inc,, 33. NY3d c1t 184-185 "[2"019]\ Here~ the legal .and factual issues common to ineinbers ofthe class have notchai1ged ~ince the 2014 decision. Th~ ultim:;ite issue is wh~th~r the Defe~dants paid its home hc:alth aides irt ac.cordancewith New York law. This. issue predominates. o,1er th~. vin.'ia11c~s among individua.l c;:Iass memo~r~. This. comt rec.ognizes that the-.claims amongclass members may differ; however, ''the com1ilonality t'ule requites pred'o.rnina11ce, 11ot identity 9r 1,manhnity'' (Fre.ernan v Oreat Lakes Energy Pqrtners, LLC, i2 AD3d 1170 [2'0d4) quotingFriai• v VanguardHoldb:igCorp;, 78 A02d ·83, 9.8 [2d Dept J.9,80]). Thtts, the.,c.ourt finds tha1'the clements .of commonality ancf predominance are satis.fied. Tire typicality ele.mentrequire.s a showing thatthe "cfaims and-defenses of the representative patties are typical of the ctaiins of'def~nses of the c,lass (Globe'.Surgical Supply v Geico Ins. Cq., 59 AD3d 129 [2d Dept2008]). This court finds th.at.the representative parties' claims arise out o.fth~ same ·course,of.conduct that is typical of the entire cl~ss·. Th~t is, the Defendants alfegedly engaged in a:practice of paying 24-hour shin, home health aides· a flat rate, as opposed· to _paying such workers in accordance with the pay pr.oyisions outlined under New York law. Superiority ~onsiderations also eriure in fav:or of certifying the class. In order to satisfy tbis element, Plaintiffs must establish that a :class action is superior to other available methqds for: _the f~ir and. efficient aqjudication .of the controversy ( Globe 6 [* 6] 6 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 Surgical Supply'v Geic:o1ns. Co,, 59 AD3d at 14:S ~ 146 [2d Dept 2008]). The putative dass consists of thousands of home health aic:les who Defendants allegedly failed to propedy compensate .. It is obvious that a class action is. the better vehicle by which to prosecute the claims of so. many individuals, who; on an individual basis, inay not be entitled to a significant sum in damages. In order to be found adequate iii representing the interests of the class, class counsel should have some experience in prosecuting class actions (Galdamez v. Biordi Cunstr. Corp., 13 MiscJd l224(A), 2006 WL2969651 [Sup Ct1 New Yotk County2006, aff.d. 50' AD3d 357 (1st Dept 2008]). This .court, having revi~wed the information provided by Plaintiffs' counsel,. is satisfied that counsel is competent and has amassed significant experie11ce prosecuting wage anc:l hour cfa.~s action law suits. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel,.who was retained on contingency; has incurred costs, attepded depositions, appeared in court; engaged in djscovery, and extensive motion practice. In the 2014 decision, the prior court denied Plaintiffs. previous motion for class certification for the stated reason that Plaintiffs failed to proffer sufficient admissible cvidcnce<concerning the class representatives. That is not the case here. The2014 decision has since been consolidated with the instant case, which increased the number of proposed representatives from two to four. The class representatives, Raisa Melamed, Tamara Badzio, Larysa Salo, and Gaylyna Malyaruk, have since. been deposed, They also subm.itted affida:vits,.wherein eachpersort dernonstrated fam.iliarity and awareness of the· central issqes in this cas~.. .,Addidonally~ ther.e:fa no showing of ai:): ~xisting. ot pot~ritial, 7 [* 7] 7 of 8 INDEX NO. 506155/2016 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2022 05:01 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 337 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2022 conflict ofin teres t amo ng the prop osed r~presentatives , or that any such reptesentativ~ is p_ursuilig· an issu~ uniq ue to hers elf but discotdant with the. dispute. com mon to ·all class members. Thes e factors weigh iri (ave r of finding that thepropo_sed repres¢ntatives_·wm fah-ly and adequately repre sent the interests of ~a~h meltl ber· of the class. Based t;tpon the foregoing, it is, here;:by · ORDERED,. that the motion (Mdtiorf-Seq·uerice_ll}of Plaintiffs, Rais a Mela~ned. Galyna Malyim1k,_ Tam ara Badzio and Larysa Salo_, individuai •iy and on beha lf of member of.the prop osed c.lass-,tbr ciass certification is granted, and _it is further .ORD ERE D, that the class is certified to the exte nt that it jn¢lu . des Hom e Health . . Aides wlm worked .24-hout shift s fo.r D~fendants Ame .dcare Certified Specfal Services, foe. airdArperi:ca.t~,Jnc. betw een . Sept embe r 27, 2005 , andt he date_Oefer:idants ceased faj ling to pay those individua1s·111e mi_nirnum,.ove rtime, and sptead~ofhour wages 1'equired i.lt'id~t the N~w York Labo r Law an4 wage regu latio ns, an~ fr is further ORD ERE :D,_t hatP laint iffs are.authorized to serv e notic e ·of the tilstant action to th¢ individual class. members by first .cJass mc1,i!, and it is. further ORI)ERED~ that Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this orde r upon Defendants with Notice of Entry with in twenty (20) d~ys of such entry . This t:onstitutes the de.cisio.n and order of the cour t. ENT ER, [* 8] 8 of 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.