The following papers numbered 1 to 6, Read on this motion noticed on 7/31/23, and duly submitted as no. 1 on the Motion Calendar of 7/31/23. PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion — Order to Show Cause — Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed 1 Answering Affidavit and Exhibits 2 Replying Affidavit and Exhibits 3 Notice of Cross-Motion — Affidavits and Exhibits Pleadings — Exhibit Stipulation(s) — Referee’s Report — Minutes Filed Papers-Order of Reference and Amending Caption in Mortgage Foreclosure Memorandum of Law 4-6 Administrative Order 5.25.2022 and Amended Bronx Auction Plan 2021 DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order authorizing class certification is decided in accordance with the Decision and Order annexed hereto. Tray Jackson, Individually and Tray Jackson on Behalf of the Proposed Class, Plaintiff(s) v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp., Defendant(s); 811859/22E In this action for violations of the New York State Labor Law (Labor Law) and the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to CPLR §§901 and 902, for class certification. Plaintiff avers that class certification is warranted because his claims that defendant violated the Labor Law and the NYCRR by failing to pay all wages due thereunder and by failing to, inter alia, provide reimbursement for the cost of uniforms and supplies are, inter alia, typical of the members of the putative class, whose membership is numerous, totaling approximately 200 people. Defendant opposes the instant motion asserting that denial is warranted because plaintiff fails to submit evidence sufficient to establish all of the factors required for class certification. For the reasons that follow hereinafter, the instant motion is granted. The instant action is for violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the Labor Law and 12 NYCRR 142. The amended complaint1 alleges that between October 2018 and December 2019 and August 17, 2021 and April 2022, defendant, an ambulance service company, which provides ambulances services in New York City, employed plaintiff as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). During his employment, plaintiff regularly worked over 10 hours per day. Plaintiff’s shifts required him to report to defendant’s office and lot, located at 1624 Stillwell Avenue, Bronx, NY (1624), where he would “clock in”, pick up his equipment, get into an ambulance along with a driver, and then wait for a dispatcher to assign patients to him. In order to ensure that the ambulance was prepared to respond to calls at the start of each shift, the ambulance was required to be fully stocked with supplies. The EMT driver or paramedic had to ensure that he/she had all necessary equipment and that it was operable. The foregoing required that plaintiff report to work prior to the start of his shift. As a result plaintiff would “clock in” before the start of his shift and would often “clock out” after the scheduled end of his shift. Despite the foregoing, defendant routinely did not memorialize plaintiff’s actual start and end times, rounding the former up and the latter down. As a result, plaintiff never received full credit for the time he actually worked — usually several extra hours per week — and never got paid for that time. Because plaintiff’s rate of pay was at or near the minimum wage — $13.50 per hour in 2018 and $18 per hour in 2021 and 2022 — the foregoing practice resulted in pay to plaintiff that was below the prevailing minimum wage. Additionally, when plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week, he never received any overtime pay. In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff was also required to wear a uniform while employed by defendant, consisting of navy blue cargo pants, a summer shirt with defendant’s logo inscribed thereon, a winter shirt with patches also bearing defendant’s logo, a fleece in the fall with reflective lettering and a patch bearing defendant’s logo, a down jacket with a patch also bearing defendant’s logo, and hats/beanies bearing defendant’s logo. Plaintiff was also required to carry a tech bag with supplies. The foregoing uniform and bag were mandatory and were conditions of plaintiff’s employment. The cost of the foregoing uniform, tech bag, and supplies was deducted from plaintiff’s pay in amounts totaling $275-$400. Defendant never provided any uniform maintenance pay to plaintiff nor did it launder the uniforms for him. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff interposes five causes of action. The first cause of action is for a violation of the Labor Law, premised on unpaid wages for failure to provide uniform maintenance pay. It is alleged that the sums paid to plaintiff were either at the minimum wage, or due to deductions for uniforms, the tech bag, and supplies, at a rate below the minimum wage in violation of Article 9 of the Labor Law and 12 NYCRR 142-2.5(c). The second cause of action is for a violation of the Labor Law, premised on the failure to pay a spread of hours premium. It is alleged that plaintiff regularly worked more than 10 hours and that defendant failed to pay him an additional hour’s pay in violation of Labor Law §65, et seq. and 12 NYCRR 142, et seq. Specifically, it is alleged that on a typical day in 2018, when plaintiff worked 10.5 hours at a rate of $13.50 per hour, he was paid $141.75, but should have been paid $149.50. The third cause of action is for a violation of the Labor Law, premised on unpaid wages caused by rounding errors. It is alleged that defendant’s practice and policy of shaving the time worked by plaintiff resulted in unpaid wages in violation of Labor Law §§2 and 651. The fourth cause of action is for a violation of the Labor Law for failure to provide wage notices and statements. It is alleged that defendant has never provided plaintiff with the notices required by Labor Law §195(1), apprising him, inter alia, of his rate of pay and the basis for the same. The last cause of action is for violation of the Labor Law premised on illegal wage deductions. It is alleged that defendant deducted the cost of a tech bag and tools from plaintiff’s pay, in violation of Labor Law §193. It is alleged that the foregoing facts and claims apply equally to all members of the putative class. Plaintiff’s application for an order granting class certification is granted. Significantly, the record establishes that all of the requirements promulgated by CPLR §901, as interpreted by prevailing case law, have been met and that all the factors promulgated by CPLR §902 militate in favor of class certification, thereby warranting the relief requested. Standard of Review CPLR §902 states that an action “may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under section 901 [of the CPLR] have been satisfied.” CPLR §901(a) states that one may sue as a representative of a class if the class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable…there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members…the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class…the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and…a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Accordingly, a class action can only be maintained if the prerequisites promulgated by CPLR §901(a) are met (Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 74 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2010]; Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 AD2d 179, 191 [1st Dept 1998]; Weinberg v. Hertz Corp., 116 AD2d 1, 4 [1986], affd 69 NY2d 979 [1987]). If the foregoing prerequisites: (1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (2) questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over questions of law or fact affecting individual class members (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the class representatives are typical of those in the class (typicality); (4) the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy); and (5) a class action represents the superior method of adjudicating the controversy (superiority) are met, the court, in deciding whether to grant class action certification should then consider the additional factors promulgated by CPLR §902, namely, the interest of individual class members in maintaining separate actions and the feasability thereof; the existence of pending litigation regarding the same controversy; the desirability of the proposed class forum; and the difficulties likely to be encountered in managing the class action (CPLR §902; Pludeman at 421-422 Ackerman at 191; see also Cooper v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 120 AD3d 742, 743 [2d Dept 2014]; Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 129, 136 [2d Dept 2008]). The proponent of an application for class certification bears the burden of establishing t
