The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This motion arises out of an action brought under the Labor Law by plaintiff, Lian Yang, against defendants New PFL Inc. (doing business as New Perfect Furniture and Lighting Inc.) and Kevin Li.1 Yang has asserted that between 2011 and 2012 she worked as a salesperson in a furniture and lighting store owned by defendant New PFL Inc.; and that defendant Li is a principal of New PFL. She claims that defendants failed to pay her a proper hourly minimum wage, failed to pay her overtime that she had earned, and failed to provide her with notices about her wages that are required by the Labor Law. She sued for back wages and statutory liquidated damages. Defendants now move for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 — arguing not that they paid (and notified) Yang properly when she worked for them, but that she never worked for them at all. The motion for summary judgment is denied.2 DISCUSSION On a summary-judgment motion under CPLR 3212, the movant must “establish[ ] a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.” (Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Dept., 25 NY3d 1102, 1106 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted).) If the movant makes this showing, the party opposing the motion must "produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action."(Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986].) Here, Yang has provided a sworn affidavit and deposition testimony attesting to and describing her employment by defendants (and their violations of the Labor Law) at their store at 143 Bowery in Manhattan. She also produced two business cards, one for a store known as New PFL, Inc. and listing Kevin Li as general manager, and one for a store known as New Perfect Furniture & Lighting, Inc., each giving the same telephone numbers. (See NYSCEF No. 43). And she testified that she understood the two cards to be referring to the same company. (See NYSCEF No. 42 at 37-43.) Defendants thus face a difficult challenge in demonstrating the absence of any material fact regarding Yang’s putative employment. They argue, though, that New PFL Inc., and any involvement by Li with a store at 143 Bowery, ceased after 2009. Thus, they claim, Yang simply could not have never worked for Li, as she claims. To the extent that Yang worked at a store at 143 Bowery called New Perfect Furniture & Lighting, Inc., that store is assertedly distinct from and unrelated to Li’s store at 143 Bowery called New PFL, Inc. (See NYSCEF No. 30 at 1.) They seek to support these arguments with documentary evidence — in effect, asking this court to disregard Yang’s contrary sworn statements as incredible as a matter of law. This court is not persuaded by defendants’ arguments. Defendants’ arguments are based primarily on two documents. First, they provide a printout from the website of the Secretary of State showing that a corporation with the legal name New PFL Inc. and an address of 143 Bowery was dissolved in 2009. (See NYSCEF No. 38.) Second, they provide a copies of Li’s W-2 for 2010 and 2012, which indicate that he was employed by PFL 231, Inc. at 231 59th Street in Brooklyn, and Furniture & Lighting Inc., at 900 60th Street in Brooklyn. (See NYSCEF No. 39.) This evidence does not, however, establish that Yang’s affidavit and testimony are necessarily incredible as a matter of law. At a minimum, the obvious similarity in names between New PFL, Inc. and New Perfect Furniture & Lighting, Inc. suggests a relationship between the two entities. Additionally, the business card that Yang has provided for New Perfect Furniture & Lighting Inc. lists two store branches: one at 143 Bowery, and one at 900 60th Street in Brooklyn. (See NYSCEF No. 43.) The telephone number listed for the 900 60th Street Branch of New Perfect Furniture & Lighting Inc. also is one of the telephone numbers appearing on the business card for New PFL Inc. (Kevin Li, general manager). (See id.) And Li’s own W-2 statements indicate that he worked after 2009 at “Furniture & Lighting Inc.” located at 900 60th Street in Brooklyn. (See NYSCEF No. 39 at 2.) Additionally, Yang has introduced a printout from the website of the Secretary of State indicating that a corporation with the legal name of PFL 143 Inc. and located at 143 Bowery in Manhattan was formed in February 2009 and remains active; that a corporation with the legal name of PFL 231 Inc. and located at 231 59th Street in Brooklyn was formed in February 2009 and remains active; and that a corporation with the legal name of PFL 900 Inc. and located at 900 60th Street was formed in March 2009 and remains active. (See NYSCEF No. 44 at 3-8.) The formation of PFL 143 Inc. thus occurred before the dissolution of New PFL Inc. and before Kevin Li assertedly vacated the premises at 143 Bowery in the fall of 2009. (See NYSCEF No. 30 at 3.) And the connections among the names and addresses of New PFL Inc., the three PFL corporations formed in early 2009, and the employers listed on Kevin Li’s W-2 statements further indicates that Yang could have worked for Kevin Li at 143 Bowery as she testified. In short, plaintiff has introduced sworn statements and documentary evidence supporting her claims, and defendants have introduced sworn statements and documentary evidence contradicting her claims. The conflict between these two accounts requires a trial to resolve. Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. Dated: June 10, 2020
