DECISION & ORDER Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is. ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion #002 seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety is hereby granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case involves allegations of unpaid minimum wages pursuant to New York Labor Law (hereinafter “NYLL”), unpaid overtime wages pursuant to NYLL, violations of the Wage Theft and Prevention Act under NYLL in failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, and sexual harassment and discrimination, all allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff while working for the Defendant Luna Rossa Bake Shop, LLC (hereinafter “Luna Rosa”) under the ownership of Defendant Vito Cardinale (hereinafter “Cardinale”). The Summons and Complaint were filed on August 31, 2021. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 7, 2019, she began working for Luna Rossa, located at 809 Henderson Avenue in Richmond County. The Plaintiff alleges that she was paid $135 in cash each week by the Defendants, working at least fifty (50) hours per week throughout the duration of her employment. The Plaintiff alleges that she was never paid the minimum wage rate, and that she was not paid the required rate of overtime for her work in excess of forty (40) hours. Plaintiff further alleges that she received no wage notice or wage statements from the Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that she was the victim of sexual harassment from a manager at Luna Rosa, identified as “Julio,” who on numerous occasions touched her buttocks and asked her to stay late at work to further perpetuate sexual harassment. Defendants’ answer was filed on January 3, 2022. Plaintiff’s deposition was held on June 28, 2022. Defendant Cardinale’s deposition was held on August 11, 2022. Discovery was concluded on December 6, 2022, and Plaintiff filed the Note of Issue on December 20, 2022. Defendants filed the instant motion on February 21, 2023. Plaintiff filed opposition on March 14, 2023, and Defendants filed a reply on March 24, 2023. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2023. PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION As relevant to this decision, the Plaintiff testified as to the following information during her deposition on June 28, 2022, via an Arabic interpreter. The Plaintiff lived in Staten Island for four years prior to the deposition. The Plaintiff testified that she could read Arabic, and she knew Spanish. The Plaintiff stated her date of birth in English during the deposition, as she did not know how to say it in Arabic. She testified that she came to the United States from Spain in March of 2018. She testified that the last job she had before her current position was at “the Italian cookies” (hereinafter “the Bakery”), which was the first job she had in the United States. She testified that she lived in the United States for six (6) months prior to starting the job. When asked the name of the Bakery, she testified that she only knew the company as “the Italian cookies.” The Plaintiff further testified that she did not know the address or the “number” and did not write down the “number” of the Bakery. When asked how long she worked at the Bakery, the Plaintiff testified that she was not sure, but she believed it was five (5) months in 2019. The Plaintiff testified that she could not remember the exact date that she began working at the Bakery, but that it was some time in 2019. The Plaintiff testified that she began working at the Bakery because someone from Columbia that lived in Staten Island worked there and helped her get hired. She testified that she did not know this individual’s name. She further testified that she never learned anyone’s last name at the Bakery because the Bakery would not allow the employees to learn each other’s last names. She testified that the Bakery did not want the customers to know that people worked there, and that it was her understanding that other employees did not have their “papers.” She identified several individual’s first names that she knew, including an individual named Anna. She testified that no one from the Bakery ever told her that she could not use her last name, and she testified that she never asked anyone for their last name. She then testified that “the supervisor of the workers” instructed her to only use her first name. She then identified that supervisor as Julio. She testified that when she went to the Bakery she met with Julio and “the Italian guy” (hereinafter “the Boss”) who hired her. She testified that she did not know the name of the man who hired her, but that he was a tall man with fair skin and dark hair. She testified that the only reason she knew he was the owner was that the other workers told her that. The Plaintiff further testified that she would work Mondays through Saturdays, but sometimes only until Fridays, from 8:00am to 6:00pm. When asked where the Bakery was located the Plaintiff testified that she did not know the exact address, then testified that there was no address, but that it was in Staten Island. She testified that she knew exactly where the Bakery was, but she did not know what street it was on. She further testified that she would walk to work twenty (20) minutes as it was close to where she lived, although sometimes she would take the bus. She testified at the end of her first week she was paid $100, and then she would receive $135 per week, with an extra $20 or $30 if she worked Saturdays. The Plaintiff did not recall how much she received in total from the Bakery. The Plaintiff testified that she was laid off from the Bakery on December 22, 2019. She testified that she was laid off after she asked the Boss for a raise. She did not remember exactly how long before she was laid off that she asked for a raise, saying it could have been two weeks or it could have been a month. She testified that she was told by the Boss “you are done and we do not need you anymore.” You cause a lot of problems and we do not want any problems. I do not want any problems and you cannot work with us. We have no more work for you.” She then testified that the Boss did not specifically tell her that she caused problems, only that “we do not want problems.” When shown the Summons and Complaint, and asked about the Complaint’s date of August 7, 2019, the Plaintiff testified that she did not remember the exact date, and that it was either July or August. She testified that “at the time I put the date on my phone and after that I don’t remember.” When asked what she meant by putting the date on her phone, the Plaintiff testified that she did not remember, and that she did not literally put the date on her phone. She testified that she was sure that she worked there for five months. When asked about an injury the Plaintiff testified that she suffered when working at the Bakery, the Plaintiff was asked if she submitted a worker’s compensation claim. The Plaintiff testified that she did. When shown a letter from the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board (hereinafter the “NYSWCB”) regarding a May 22, 2019, injury, the Plaintiff testified that was when she was injured. When asked if she understood that the NYSWBC denied her claim, she testified that she did not. She further testified that no one had informed her about the denial. The Plaintiff further testified, again, that she began working at the Bakery in August of 2019, and that she had been working at the Bakery for two-three (2-3) months before being injured. She testified again that she was laid off in December of 2019. When shown three timesheets provided by the Defendants, the Plaintiff testified that she had never seen the documents before. She testified that she had been instructed to write her name in a book but that she did not know what she was writing her name on. When asked if she signed her name on the documents the Plaintiff answered that she only wrote her name, but she did not know what she wrote her name on, and that she did not know how to read. She further testified that she only knew how to write her name and that she could not recognize numbers. When asked if she worked at the Bakery during the week of June 7, 2019, as displayed on one of the timesheets, the Plaintiff reiterated that she did not remember. When showed the second week time sheet provided by the Defendants and asked if she could recognize what was on that sheet, the Plaintiff answered “[s]ir as I said, I am the one who put my name in that book.” She further testified that she did not put any date, as she did not know how to write the date. Later on in the deposition, when again shown pictures of the time sheets and asked if she had signed them, the Plaintiff testified “[yes], this is what I was talking about, that I wrote my name on the book and that is all. I did not even know what did I write my name on. I do not even know what it is.” When shown a photo of a door displaying a wage and hour notice provided by the Defendants, the Plaintiff testified that she had never seen that door before. When asked if Julio acted inappropriately towards her in any way when she worked at the Bakery, the Plaintiff answered yes, and that Julio wanted to take advantage of women. She testified that Julio asked her to stay with him after everyone else had left the Bakery, and that he tried to get rid of her after she refused. The Plaintiff further testified that when she was standing at a machine Julio came over and stood next to her and made his shoulder touch her. When asked where Julio touched her, the Plaintiff indicated her shoulder. The Plaintiff testified that he once asked her to “stay after they leave,” and stated that it was understood he wanted to sleep with the female employees. She stated that he “tried touching [her] from the lower part” and that he told her “you have a full body.” When asked further if he had touched her, Plaintiff answered, “like my sides, like on the end of my sides.” When asked if she ever talked to the Boss about the way Julio acted towards her Plaintiff answered, “I did not because he knows, everyone knows what is going on there.” When asked how she knew that everyone knew, the Plaintiff testified that “everyone knows. The Italian guy knows that [Julio] stays late and [Julio] closes the store. Everyone knows that Anna stays late with [Julio] to sleep with [Julio]. It is well known over there.” When asked if Anna had ever told her that she was sleeping with Julio, the Plaintiff testified that Anna did not but that “people saw them.” When asked if people saw Anna and Julio having sex at the Bakery, the Plaintiff testified they did not see them, but they knew. DEFENDANT CARDINALE’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY As relevant to this decision, the Defendant Vito Cardinale testified as to the following information during his deposition on August 11, 2022. He testified that he was the owner of Luna Rossa and had been the owner of Luna Rossa for fifteen (15) years. He testified that Luna Rossa is a wholesale cookie company located at 809 Henderson Avenue in Staten Island, where it had been located for the past fifteen (15) years. Cardinale testified that Luna Rossa sells to distributors who then resell their product. He testified that there are no retail locations, and the store is not open to the public. At the time of the deposition, he testified that there are three employees in addition to himself. He testified that he had met the Plaintiff a few years prior, but he did not remember the specific date. He testified that she knocked on the door at the location looking for a job. He testified that it was his decision to hire her. Cardinale testified that the Plaintiff was hired part-time to package cookies. Her job was to weigh cookies and seal them in containers. He testified that according to the signed slips the Plaintiff began work in the beginning of June 2019. He testified that Plaintiff’s work schedule would vary depending on how many orders the Defendants received. He testified that the Plaintiff was paid $15 an hour for her work. The Plaintiff received documents only when she was paid, and not before. Upon being shown the aforementioned time sheets, Cardinale testified that he had seen them before, and that they were end of week pay stubs for when he pays employees. He testified that they were the only three timesheets Luna Rossa had in its possession, as the three weeks covered in the timesheets were the only time the Plaintiff worked at the location. Cardinale further testified that he had searched Luna Rossa’s files in response to this litigation and obtained the three timesheets from a file cabinet. He testified that there were no other record that he knew of that would reflect the days or weeks that the Plaintiff worked at Luna Rossa. He testified that it was his handwriting on the time sheets for all information contained therein aside from the Plaintiff’s name and signature. He testified that the Plaintiff was the one who signed each time sheet, and that he personally saw the Plaintiff sign the time sheets. He testified that depending on the orders received that week, workers would work varying three-day shifts, and that they were paid the next day they worked after the final day recorded on the time sheets. He testified that he had no recollection of the specific days the Plaintiff worked based on the time sheets. He testified that he would document when he saw the Plaintiff arrive and leave work on a given day on a separate paper that he kept only until he added up those hours at the end of a week on the timesheets. If he did not personally see the Plaintiff leave, Cardinale testified that a manager named Abun Dio would tell him. Cardinale, in fact, identified Abun Dio as Julio. He testified that Abun Dio was still working with Luna Rossa at the time of the deposition.1 Cardinale testified that he would add up the total hours and minutes worked by the Plaintiff and multiply it by 15 to reach the amount she was paid. He testified that he would round up regarding their hours and he never deducted. He testified that he had the employees sign the pay stub so that he and the employee were on the same page regarding the hours they worked. He further testified that the 16:50 present on the June 21, 2019 timesheet indicated sixteen (16) hours and fifty (50) minutes. Cardinale further testified that the Plaintiff was always paid in cash. Based on the June 21, 2019, pay stub, Cardinale knew that was the last week that The Plaintiff worked, as it was the last week she was paid, and he was in possession of no other pay stubs. He was unsure if her last day was specifically that day, as he always dated the time sheets for the Friday of the week. Regarding the June 7, 2019, pay stub, which indicated 15:50 hours, Cardinale believed the Plaintiff worked three days, as they would usually do four (4) to six (6) hours a day. He testified that it was possible that the Plaintiff could have worked more or less hours per day depending on how the week, or time of season. He testified that the hours differed each week because Luna Rossa’s weekly work was dependent on the orders they received at the beginning of the week. Upon being shown the aforementioned letter from the NYSWCB, Cardinale testified that the Plaintiff gave a false date because she was not working for him in May of 2019. He testified that it was his handwriting on the forms provided to Amtrust North America (hereinafter “Amtrust”) as part of the NYSWCB investigation. He testified that the total number of hours and pay sent to Amtrust as part of the forms was totaled from the three timesheets signed by the Plaintiff. He testified that the forms sent to Amtrust indicated Plaintiff’s workdays were Tuesday through Thursday, though he did not remember filling out that section, and could not recall specifically if she had ever worked a Monday. Cardinale testified that the Plaintiff never complained that she was touched inappropriately during her time at Luna Rossa. She never complained to him she was mistreated during her time at Luna Rossa. He testified that Julio did work with the Plaintiff during her time at Luna Rossa. He testified that Julio was a baker and manager when Cardinale was not there, which Cardinale stated was rare. He further testified that Julio never worked in a supervisory position to the Plaintiff. Cardinale testified that the Plaintiff’s employment came to end when she gave verbal notice to him in Spanish that her father was sick or had passed away, and that she had to go back to her country. The Plaintiff did not ask him if she could work when she returned. Cardinale testified that he did not believe the Plaintiff spoke much English and that he did not think she understood English. He testified that the Plaintiff would try to speak to him in Spanish, which he spoke a little. He believes she could read English, in that he observed her count the money he gave her, leading him to believe she could read her name, the amount of money, and the number of hours. He testified that he was involved in one prior lawsuit regarding wages that settled in either 2016 or 2017. ARGUMENTS The Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgement dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The Defendants argue that the allegations contained within the Complaint and the testimony of the Plaintiff at her deposition are vague and inconsistent. They argue that in her deposition the Plaintiff was unable to identify the name of the bakery in which she worked and that the Plaintiff was unable to identify any specific week in which she worked over forty (40) hours or any single day in which she worked over eight (8) hours. Further, they argue the Plaintiff was not able to identify any records that would reflect how much she was paid. The Defendants further argue that they produced time sheets maintained in the regular course of business that show that the Plaintiff worked at Luna Rossa the weeks of June 7, June 14, and June 21 in 2019. They allege that these timesheets show that she was paid $238 for 15:50 hours of work, $291 for 19:20 hours of work, and $252 for 16:50 hours of work for each of those three weeks respectively. They argue that while the Plaintiff denied understanding what she was signing, she testified that she did in fact sign off on these time sheets. Defendants further argue that not only do these timesheets display that the Plaintiff never worked in excess of the forty (40) hours and that she was sufficiently compensated for her work, but these time sheets also predate the allegations contained in the Complaint by over one month. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff offered no testimony that supports her allegations that Julio touched her buttocks, as the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony was only that she was touched on her shoulder. They further argue that the Plaintiff never advised the owner about any harassment by Julio. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to support any claim for discrimination or retaliation, in that she testified she was told she was being terminated because there was no more work for her. In further support of their motion, the Defendants submitted an affidavit from Cardinale where he swore to much of the same information he testified to in his deposition. He further swore that he maintains a poster of New York State and Federal Laws regarding employee rights which hangs in Luna Rossa, and that he recalled the Plaintiff signing her timesheets because her signature did not appear to be her name. He further swore that this is why he had her print her name next to her signature. In response, the Plaintiff argues that there are triable issues of fact based on the Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff argues that she sufficiently testified that she began working for The Defendants in or around August of 2019 and worked there for approximately five (5) months afterwards. Plaintiff argues that she sufficiently testified that that she worked Mondays through Fridays and occasionally Saturday from 8:00am to 6:00 pm, for a total of fifty (50) hours per week. Plaintiff further argues that she sufficiently testified that she was paid $135 per week if she worked fifty (50) hours, and an additional $20-$30 per week if she worked Saturday. Plaintiff argues that the timesheets submitted by the Defendants are irrelevant, as they do not show specific days the plaintiff worked, nor her hourly rate of payment. Further, the Plaintiff denies ever seeing these timesheets, and alleges that she only signed her name in a book, on a blank page without any times or dates, at the Boss’ direction. Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ submission of these time sheets supports her claims under New York Labor Law §195(1)(a) and §195(3) in that they did not provide the Plaintiff required information under those statutes. Finally, Plaintiff argues that her deposition testimony shows that she was sexually harassed by Julio, who was identified numerous times as a manager for the Defendants, and that she sufficiently testified that Defendant Cardinale had notice that Julio harassed the Plaintiff and others. In reply, the Defendants point out that the Plaintiff never verified her Complaint or her discovery responses, never executed her deposition transcript, and failed to submit an affidavit in opposition to Defendant’s motion. In light of this, and in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was never able to identify specifically where she worked, who she worked for, or any specific weeks, or dates that she worked, the Plaintiff has failed to meet even the minimal burden to carry any of her claims. DISCUSSION It is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if “upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” CPLR 3212(b). The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing by offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case that as a matter of law the movant is entitled to summary judgment. See Winegrad v. NYU Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985). In order for the court to grant summary judgment, “it must clearly appear that no material triable issue of fact is presented” and it is not for the court to resolve issues of fact, “but merely to determine whether such issues exist.” See Rebecchi v. Whitmore, 172 A.D.2d 600 (2d Dep’t 1991). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw any and all inferences in that party’s favor. See Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503 (2012); Cruz v. 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 859, 865 (2d Dep’t 2021). Further, Courts have consistently held that allegations amounting to no more than unsubstantiated conclusory assertions are not sufficient to defeat the motion. Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701 (2d Dep’t 1987). UNPAID WAGES AND UNPAID OVERTIME Under the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving that they were not properly compensated for their work. See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946). An employer bears the burden of maintaining proper and accurate records of the hours worked and amounts paid to their employees. See Ladino v. Cordova, 2023 WL 2915402, at *3 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 12, 2023). Should an employer fail to maintain such records, a Plaintiff can establish their prima facie face with proof that they performed the work they were improperly compensated for and with evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. See Anderson v. ML Clemens Potter Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946); Matter of Bae v. Industrial Board of Appeals, 104 A.D.3d 571, 572 (1d Dep’t 2013). While the Plaintiff’s burden is low in this regard and a Plaintiff may meet their burden through estimates based on their recollection, there must be some credible evidence that the Plaintiff performed the work for which they allege they were not properly compensated. Kubel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 362 (2d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “FLSA”), an employee who works in “excess of forty hours” shall be paid for that excess work “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). In order to show entitlement to unpaid overtime, a Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that they worked forty (40) hours in a given week, as well as some time in excess of those forty (40) worked hours, and that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of that work. See Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d at 361; Burns v. Haven Manor Health Care Ctr., LLC, 2015 Wage & Hour Cas 2d (BNA) 177830 (E.D.N.Y Mar. 10, 2015). NOTICE OF WAGES AND WAGE STATEMENTS Under New York Labor Law §195(1) an employer must: provide his or her employees, in writing in English and in the language identified by each employee, as the primary language of such employee, at the time of hiring, a notice containing the following information: the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other;…the regular pay day designated by the employer in accordance with section one hundred ninety-one of this article; the name of the employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the telephone number of the employer; plus such other information as the commissioner deems material and necessary. Should an employer fail to provide the statutory information to an employee within the first ten (10) business days of their employment, an employee is entitled to damages of $50 per day until a wage notice is provided up to a maximum of $5,000.00. NY Labor Law §198(1-b); Chichinadze v. BG Bar Inc., 517 F.Supp. 3d 240, 259. A Defendant can satisfy Labor Law §195(1)(a) with evidence of a written acknowledgment of receipt, signed and dated by plaintiff, and received and retained by defendant. NY Labor Law §195(1)(a); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §146-2.2(c). Davis v. Carlo’s Bakery 42nd & 8th LLC, 180 N.Y.S3d 805, 808 (Sup. Ct. 2022). Further, Under New York Labor Law §195(3), an employer must: furnish each employee with a statement with every payment of wages, listing the following: the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages. It is an affirmative defense under New York Labor Law §198 (1)(b)(i) that an employer made complete and timely payment of all wages due pursuant to the Labor Law to the employee who was not provided notice as required by subdivision one of section one hundred ninety-five. Under New York Labor Law §198(1)(d), it is an affirmative defense to a Labor Law §195(3) claim if an employer had provided “complete and timely payment of all wages” to the Plaintiff employee. See Ahmed v. Morgan’s Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 160 A.D.3d 555, 556 (1d Dep’t 2018). SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION Under Executive Law §296(1)(a), “[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice…[f]or an employer…because of an individual’s…sex…to discriminate against such individual in compensations or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” An employment discrimination cause of action may proceed on a hostile work environment theory. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 310-311). “[W]here the complainant is harassed by a low-level supervisor…the complainant is required to establish only that upper-level supervisors had knowledge of the conduct and ignored it; if so, the harassment will be imputed to the corporate employer and will result in imposition of direct liability” (Vitale v. Rosina Food Products Inc., 283 A.D.2d 141, 148 (4d Dep’t 2001), quoting Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 642 N.Y.S.2d 739). To prevail on a claim for discrimination under New York City Human Rights Law §8-107 a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the NYCHRL. To make out an unlawful retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) his or her employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §8-107(7); Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312-313 (2004) Should a Plaintiff meet their burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its actions, see Delrio v. City of New York, 91 A.D.3d900,901 (2d Dep’t 2012). If a defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must show that the reasons put forth by the defendant were a pretext. See id.; Pace v. Ogden Servs. Corp., 257 A.D.2d 101, 104 (3d Dep’t 1999); see also Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166, 173 (2d Cir. 2005). DISCUSSION PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION Initially, this Court is granting summary judgement dismissing the Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. At her deposition, the Plaintiff could not identify Luna Rossa as the bakery that is the subject of this litigation, either by its name or by its location. The Plaintiff only identifies where she worked as “the Italian Cookies” owned by “the Italian Man.” The only individuals the Plaintiff identifies by name relevant to these claims are a “Julio,” a manager who worked in the Bakery, and an “Anna,” a co-worker. She testified that the Bakery was located on Staten Island, within a twenty-minute walking distance from where she lived. However, she was unable to provide a street name for where the Bakery is located, or the specific route she took to get to the Bakery. The Plaintiff testified repeatedly that she did not know where the August 7, 2019, date alleged in her complaint came from. The Plaintiff repeatedly testified that she only remembered that she worked there for five months before leaving on December 22, 2019, when she was terminated. However, the Plaintiff further testified that she did in fact put in the worker’s compensation claim against Luna Rossa for an injury she allegedly suffered, which was only introduced by the Defendants in response to the litigation. The information from the NYSWCB provided by the Defendants indicates that the injury was alleged by the Plaintiff in May of 2019. While the Plaintiff admitted that she submitted this claim, and alleged that she was in fact injured working for the Defendants at that time, this date further frustrates her alleged timeline of working with Luna Rossa from August 2019 to December of 2019. The Plaintiff testified that she had been working for two to three months before the injury occurred. This would imply that the Plaintiff had been working for Luna Rossa since at least March of 2019, which is unsupported by the Plaintiff’s complaint and deposition testimony, and unsupported by the testimony and evidence of the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff only provided testimony that she worked every Monday through Friday, and sometimes Saturday, between August 2019 and December 2019. She further alleged that she always worked in excess of forty (40) hours, was only paid $100 for her first week with training, and $135 for each week going forward. She also testified that she would be paid an additional $20-$30 dollars if she worked Saturdays. However, she was unable to identify any specific week that she worked, and further was unable to identify any week where she worked the extra day of Saturday. In response to these claims, the Defendants produced three-time sheets allegedly signed by the Plaintiff, that showed she worked at Luna Rossa for three weeks in June of 2019. These time sheets indicated that the Plaintiff never worked more than 20 hours in any week, and was paid $238, $291, and $252 for the three weeks worked. The Plaintiff testified that, while she did not understand what she was signing, she did admit that she did in fact sign the timesheets that were provided by the Defendants. Although it is Plaintiff’s contention that she only signed a page in a book, the deposition questioning demonstrates that the Plaintiff signed the timesheets displayed to her. This was further supported by the testimony of Cardinale, who testified as to his process for tracking employee hours and calculating employee pay, and his testimony that he personally witnessed the Plaintiff sign each time sheet. While this Court recognizes that the Plaintiff’s burden in this matter is a low one, in light of the aforementioned discrepancies, this Court is not inclined to simply accept Plaintiff’s blanket allegations based on her recollection that she worked the same hours each day each and every week in 2019 from August to December without any additional evidence presented. In light of the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, and the information provided by the Defendants, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden. See Kubel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 362 (2d Cir. 2011); Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701 (2d Dep’t 1987). As such, this Court is granting summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION Further, this Court is granting summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action. For many of the same reasons previously stated, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has submitted no credible evidence other than her own allegations that the Defendants failed to provide adequate notice of wages and wage statements. Conversely, it was the Defendants who produced timesheets as evidence. Despite the admitted shortcomings in these time sheets regarding specificity of days and specific hours worked each day, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff signed these sheets, and Cardinale testified that it was only upon receipt of the payment indicated on those sheets that the Plaintiff signed them. See Ahmed v. Morgan’s Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 160 A.D.3d 555, 556 (1d Dep’t 2018). Even if this Court were to disregard Defendant’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s signature, these timesheets predate the timeline alleged in the Complaint by over one-month, and as such will not carry the burden of proving Plaintiff’s case. Finally, despite the evidence of a wage notice presented by the Defendants, the Plaintiff testified that she never saw the notice when at the Bakery. In light of the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds the Plaintiff has presented no credible evidence that the Defendants failed to provide such notice. Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701 (2d Dep’t 1987). PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION Finally, this Court is granting summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth causes of action for sexual harassment and discrimination as well. Notwithstanding the aforementioned issues with the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence, the Plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case on either case based on her deposition testimony. The complaint alleges that Julio touched the Plaintiff’s buttocks multiple times without her consent, and that Julio would ask her to stay late to perpetuate sexual harassment against her. However, in her deposition, the Plaintiff never testified that Julio touched her buttocks, and only testified that his shoulder touched her “sides” or the “end of [her] sides.” Additionally, the Plaintiff did testify that Julio asked her to stay late with her, and it was her belief that he wanted her to sleep with him. However, when asked if Julio had asked her specifically to do so, the Plaintiff testified that he did not, and that “it was understood” he wanted to sleep with the women in the Bakery. The only further testimony that could be argued to support Plaintiff’s claims regarding Julio was Plaintiff’s testimony that the woman she knew as Anna would stay late to sleep with Julio. However, when asked if Anna had told the Plaintiff that she stayed late to sleep with Julio, the Plaintiff again testified that Anna did not, and that despite nobody seeing Anna and Julio in this regard, “they knew.” Even if this Court found all of these aforementioned allegations as true, the Plaintiff still must prove that Cardinale had knowledge of the sexual harassment or discriminatory practice perpetuated by his employee to prevail on either claim. See Vitale v. Rosina Food Products Inc., 283 A.D.2d 141, 148 (4d Dep’t 2001); Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §8-107(7); Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312-313 (2004). When asked if she had ever told the Boss about either, the Plaintiff stated that she did not, again, because “everyone knew.” As stated above, these unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions will not defeat defendant’s motion. Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701 (2d Dep’t 1987). Therefore, this Court is granting summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth causes of action. CONCLUSION This Court find that the Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case to support any of the claims contained in her complaint. There are numerous deficiencies discrepancies in the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the Plaintiff has failed to submit any other credible evidence to support her claims. In light of these deficiencies and the evidence provided by the Defendants in support of their motion, this Court is granting the Defendants’ summary judgment motion dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: May 11, 2023
