Opinion & Order The plaintiffs in this case, a married couple, lived in and maintained an apartment building owned by defendants. The husband, who was employed as the superintendent, argues that he was paid less than the minimum wage and was not paid overtime. And the wife, who was paid nothing, argues that she should have been compensated for her assistance with the maintenance of the building. Meanwhile, the four defendants argue that only one of them was legally the husband’s employer and that the wife is not owed anything. The undisputed facts show that at least three of the defendants “employed” the husband within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and that the husband is entitled to some amount of damages. But genuine questions remain as to how much he is entitled to recover, as to whether his wife can recover at all, and as to whether recovery can be had from the fourth defendant. Thus for the reasons set forth below, the defendants’ summary-judgment motion is denied, and the plaintiffs’ is denied in part and granted in part.BACKGROUNDThe DefendantsThe remaining defendants1 in this action are two brothers, Ronald Swartz and Steven Swartz, and two entities, Oneota Associates, LLC, and Paro Management Co., Inc. Ronald2 is a manager of Oneota and the president of Paro. R. Swartz Dep. 10:6-7, 13:15-21, 59:3-6, ECF No. 43-3; Defs.’ 56.1 Resp.8, ECF No. 49-1. He is also associated with several other entities, all of which, including Oneota and Paro, operate out of a single office, where both individual defendants work. R. Swartz Dep. 8:11-9:25, 27:25-30:3, 35:20-36:4; S. Swartz Dep. 5:25-6:3, ECF No. 43-5; Defs.’ 56.1 Resp.3. Each of these entities owns real estate or provides services to owners of real estate. See R. Swartz Dep. 10:21-27:18. Both Ronald and Steven have ownership interests in Oneota, and Oneota in turn owns two neighboring apartment buildings in Astoria, New York, including the one where plaintiff Drasko Draskovic lived and worked. Defs.’ 56.1 Resp.1; Pls.’ 56.1 Statement
6-7, ECF No. 48-1; R. Swartz Dep. 10:21-25.Ronald also has an ownership interest in Paro, which provides various administrative services to real-property owners, including Oneota and many of the other property-owning entities that operate out of the defendants’ office. See R. Swartz Dep. 13:15-15:4; Aldono Dep. 6:2-7:24, ECF No. 43-7. Although there are approximately twenty different property-owning entities for which Paro provides services, Ronald is the only representative of these entities with whom Paro’s office manager, Jennifer Aldono, has ever interacted. See Aldono Dep. 6:8-25, 14:19-15:13. No written agreement governs the services that Paro provides Oneota. Defs.’ 56.1 Resp.4.In addition to the individual defendants, at least ten other individuals are employed at the defendants’ office. R. Swartz Dep. 29:19-30:10. Each of these employees performs a particular role on behalf of all the relevant entities. See id. at 30:24-35:12, 36:11-40:23.3 Ronald has sole responsibility for determining the salary of each of these employees but, at his deposition, was unable to recall which entity actually employed which employee. See id. at 30:4-15, 45:24-46:10; see also id. at 137:2-138:21.4 The entities also employ live-in superintendents in most of the “approximately 20 apartment buildings” they own. Id. at 41:10-43:5. Ronald testified that he alone is responsible for supervising and directing the work of the entities’ superintendents. Id. at 44:21-45:7.Although Steven works in the office, he holds no titled position at any of the entities and has no involvement with Paro. S. Swartz Dep. 8:16-18, 12:17-21; R. Swartz Dep. 59:25-60:4. Steven acknowledged that he “do[es] some stuff” for the entities but explained that his involvement has become much more limited in the last ten years. S. Swartz Dep. 6:19-7:4. According to his testimony, he has not been involved in the management of Oneota “for a long time.” Id. at 44:16-19.The PlaintiffsIn 1999, Drasko began working as the live-in superintendent at a 116-unit building owned by Oneota. Pls.’ 56.1 Statement
