StClair v. Sansal

• Decision Date: 14 September 2021
• Docket Number: SCNY-16201/2020-1
• Citation: 155 N.Y.S.3d 712,73 Misc.3d 492
• Parties: Neil E. STCLAIR, Claimant, v. Tarik SANSAL, and Homepeople Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: New York Civil Court

73 Misc.3d 492

155 N.Y.S.3d 712

Neil E. STCLAIR, Claimant,

v.Tarik SANSAL, and Homepeople Corporation, Defendants.

SCNY-16201/2020-1

Civil Court, City of New York, New York County.

Decided on September 14, 2021

Neil E. StClair, claimant pro se.

Tarik Sansal, defendant pro se.

Ilana J. Marcus, J.

Claimant Neil E. StClair brought this small claims matter against defendants Tarik Sansal and Homepeople Corporation for failure to pay wages in the amount of $3,250.00 and for a doubling of that amount as damages pursuant to the Freelance Isn't Free Act ("FIFA"). A virtual trial was held over the MS Teams platform on August 12, 2021. Claimant is awarded judgment as follows:

It was undisputed that claimant was hired as an independent contractor performing work as the "Chief Growth Officer" and "Chief Operating Officer" of defendant Homepeople Corporation (referred to hereafter as, "Homepeople"). Claimant and Homepeople entered into a written agreement memorializing his consulting agreement on January 2, 2019. Defendant Sansal signed the agreement as the "President and Chief Executive Officer" of Homepeople. The agreement provides that claimant would be paid $6,500.00 monthly, in biweekly installments. Payments were made without issue until February 2020. Claimant was not paid for his biweekly wages spanning February 1, 2020 through February 15, 2020. Shortly thereafter, claimant filed a complaint with the New York City Office of Labor Policy & Standards (OLPS) alleging a FIFA violation. Claimant also commenced this action.

At the outset, the claims as against defendant Sansal are dismissed. The claims here solely stem from non-payment of wages in accordance with the consulting agreement. There are no cognizable claims against defendant Sansal personally, and thus, this action is dismissed as against him.

As to Homepeople, claimant invokes a violation of FIFA as the basis of his claim. Passed in 2016 and made effective in 2017, FIFA created new protections for New York City's freelance workforce against unlawful practices by employers (see NYC Admin Code § 20-927 et seq ). FIFA entitles freelancers to written contracts for any work exceeding $800 during a 120-day period, timely payment, and freedom from retaliation (id. ). FIFA further provides, inter alia, the right to file a complaint with OLPS, and court navigation services, which provide assistance with filing lawsuits, sample contracts, and other information (see Freelance Isn't Free Act: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), available at https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/workers/FAQs-Freelance.pdf [last accessed Sept. 14, 2021]). Companies in breach of FIFA expose themselves to statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees (see NYC Admin Code § 20-933 ).

FIFA violations can be resolved through complaints made to OLPS. Once a party files a complaint, OLPS will notify the hiring party (see Freelance Isn't Free Act: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), available at https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/workers/FAQs-Freelance.pdf [last accessed Sept. 14, 2021]). Failure to respond to the complaint within 20 days "creates a rebuttable presumption in any civil action commenced pursuant to this chapter that the hiring party committed the violations alleged in the complaint" ( NYC Admin Code § 20-931 ).

Here, claimant testified that he followed OLPS's procedures by filing a complaint with the agency. In response, OLPS notified Homepeople to respond to the violation. On June 8, 2020, OLPS generated a "Notice of Hiring Party's Failure to Respond to Complaint" ("Notice"). The Notice and provisions of FIFA create a rebuttable presumption here that Homepeople violated the law (see NYC Admin Code § 20-931[d] ). Therefore, the burden at trial shifted to Homepeople to demonstrate that it acted lawfully (see id. , https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/workers/FAQs-Freelance.pdf [last accessed Sept. 14, 2021]).

In its defense, Homepeople, through its president, Mr. Sansal, did not contest that it failed to pay claimant's disputed wages. At the time of the wage dispute, Homepeople was waiting for an investment to make payroll, which never materialized. Mr. Sansal testified that the company is presently insolvent. However, Mr. Sansal offered that claimant's work was unsatisfactory, which contributed to the non-payment. Mr....