STABILE v. DRAGONETTI BROTHERS LANDSCAPING NURSERY FLORIST INC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathleen Waterman–Marshall, J.), entered September 18, 2025, which granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting class certification (see CPLR 901[a];  Borden v. 400 E. 55th Assoc., L.P., 24 N.Y.3d 382, 398, 998 N.Y.S.2d 729, 23 N.E.3d 997 [2014] ).  The worker affirmations submitted in support of the motion sufficiently demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominated.  For example, plaintiffs submitted affirmations showing that defendants systematically failed to pay prevailing wages and supplemental benefits to landscaping employees who were performing tree pruning, cutting, chipping, and related construction-like work on public works projects.  In addition, this Court has already held that the allegations in the complaint adequately stated causes of action for breach of contract on behalf of a class consisting of individuals performing those tasks (Stabile v. Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc., 238 A.D.3d 577, 577, 232 N.Y.S.3d 146 [1st Dept. 2025] ).

Defendants' contention that landscaping work requires individualized, worker-specific determinations as to whether the work involved construction-like labor does not defeat commonality at the class-certification stage.  This conclusion is supported by the contract which contemplated work involving aerial lifts, chainsaws, debris removal, and work zone safety operations (see De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 530, 535, 975 N.Y.S.2d 371, 997 N.E.2d 1223 [2013] ).  Further, differences in job duties and project assignments do not bar class treatment where, as here, plaintiffs' claims that defendants systematically failed to pay the prevailing wage are “particularly appropriate for class certification” (Stanton v. Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist Inc., 238 A.D.3d 578, 578, 232 N.Y.S.3d 145 [1st Dept. 2025];  see Chua v. Trim–Line Hitech Constr. Corp., 225 A.D.3d 565, 566, 208 N.Y.S.3d 571 [1st Dept. 2024] ).

Plaintiffs' showing also satisfied the numerosity requirement.  The worker affidavits in this action identified around 40 relevant coworkers, far exceeding the number that the legislature contemplated as sufficient for a class action (see e.g. Borden, 24 N.Y.3d at 399, 998 N.Y.S.2d 729, 23 N.E.3d 997 [noting that the legislature contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members];  Hoffman v. Fort 709 Assoc., L.P., 204 A.D.3d 516, 517, 164 N.Y.S.3d 818 [1st Dept. 2022] [certified class consisted of tenants of 16 apartments] ).