TRIAL DECISION Claimant commenced a pro se action seeking loss of time for work for $8,000.00 for “Loss” of time for work for $8,000.00 with interest from 01/05/2022. This matter had appeared for previous conferences and it was clear to the defendant that the claim was, more precisely, for unpaid wages. Defendant filed an answer with a defense of general denial and also alleged, “ROMEO and I, where (misspelling in answer) friends. He needed a place to live and offered to help me withimproving my home to gather (misspelling in answer). When he could because he was working, took care of him totally. I can prove giving money, bought his clothes, food, hair cutting, money to his family and certification for his entire stay. He volunteered to help me.” At the trial, defendant made an oral motion to dismiss the claim on grounds of venue, since he was a resident of East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, that all the events occurred in Pennsylvania, and that claimant also lived in Pennsylvania. Defendant produced a Pennsylvania driver’s license. Claimant produced a New York City identification card, with an address in Queens County. Claimant stated that he worked fifteen hours a day at defendant’s home in Pennsylvania, starting around January 8, 2021, until around May 25, 2021. The claimant says he slept in a room on the second floor, and was provided food. Claimant produced thirty-five colors photographs, which he stated showed his work. Claimant also stated the value of his work was $120.00 per day, but he on the second floor, and was provided food. Claimant produced thirty-five color photographs, which he stated showed his work. Claimant also stated the value of his work was $120.00 per day, but he is only seeking $60.00 per day, since he received food and shelter. Upon cross examination, defendant brought out from the claimant that the agreement was made at a meeting at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. Defendant also brought out that during this period of time, he had transported the claimant to work at a job site in Manhattan. It was agreed by both sides that there were no written records of the days worked. Defendant also said, that at claimant’s request, he sent $900.00 of claimant’s “wages” to claimant’s family in the Philippines. Claimant acknowledge the same. The defendant acknowledged that at previous conferences at the Court, he was repeatedly told that if he wanted a dismissal on the theory of lack of proper venue or jurisdiction, he needed to serve and file a written motion, and that defendant never served, nor filed a written motion. Given the testimony that the agreement was entered into in Manhattan, and that a portion of the labor occurred in Manhattan, the Court denies that application. Given the lack of written documents, the Court relies on the testimony of the claimant and the defendant. The Court finds that substantial justice requires a finding that claimant shall have a judgment against the defendant in the amount of $3,000.00, plus interest from January 5, 2022, plus costs. It appears both parties derived some benefits from the working relationship, but some balancing of equities is needed and Defendant is perhaps learning a valuable lesson. This is the decision and order of this Court. Dated: June 13, 2024
