ROSARIO v. HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Morales–Minerva, J.), entered on or about January 10, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class consisting of “[a]ll individuals employed by The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. [Hallen], who performed construction work from August 21, 2015 to the present and who were not compensated for all time spent reporting to Hallen's yard in the morning, and for their unpaid time travelling between Hallen's yard and work sites in New York.” Plaintiffs demonstrated commonality based on their claims that Hallen systematically failed to pay construction workers for yard time and for travel time to and from the yard to work sites.  Claims such as these are “particularly appropriate for class certification” (Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 152, 184, 100 N.Y.S.3d 612, 124 N.E.3d 162 [2019];  see also Dziura v. Human Dev. Assn., Inc., 231 A.D.3d 615, 616–617, 219 N.Y.S.3d 56 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Whether a particular class member worked at a yard from 6 a.m. on a particular day or traveled to and from a worksite in a Hallen vehicle is relevant to the individual's damages only.  Individualized damages issues based on Hallen's alleged systematic policies do not undermine commonality or weigh substantially against class certification (see Chua v. Trim–Line Hitech Constr. Corp., 225 A.D.3d 565, 566, 208 N.Y.S.3d 571 [1st Dept. 2024]).

The court also properly found that plaintiffs showed that a class action was superior to the other available methods for resolving this dispute in view of the cost of individual litigation and the modest damages recoverable by each individual worker (see Lavrenyuk v. Life Care Servs., Inc., 198 A.D.3d 569, 570, 152 N.Y.S.3d 907 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1021, 168 N.Y.S.3d 716, 188 N.E.3d 1005 [2022]).

Hallen's opposition was principally based on its denial of a practice and policy of underpaying its construction workers.  However, in determining whether an action should be certified as a class action, a court's consideration of whether the asserted claims have merit is limited, and plaintiffs need only show that there appears to be some credible cause of action (see Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Servs. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc, 220 A.D.3d 519, 520–521, 198 N.Y.S.3d 24 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Here, plaintiffs submitted sworn statements from numerous Hallen construction workers that supported their claims. This evidence was sufficient to satisfy the minimal threshold of showing that their claims are not meritless (see Kudinov v. Kel–Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481, 482, 884 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept. 2009]).

We have considered Hallen's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.