Stecko v. RLI Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2014
• Docket Number: 13265, 100059/11.
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07103,995 N.Y.S.2d 13,121 A.D.3d 542
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Christopher STECKO, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant, Three Generations Contracting, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants.

121 A.D.3d 542

995 N.Y.S.2d 13

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07103

Christopher STECKO, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents

v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–AppellantThree Generations Contracting, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants.

13265, 100059/11.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Oct. 21, 2014.

Dreifuss, Bonacci & Parker PC, Florham Park, NJ (David C. Dreifuss of the bar of the State of New Jersey, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (James E. Murphy of counsel), for respondents.

TOM, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2013, which granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in holding that plaintiffs satisfied the prerequisites for class certification (see CPLR 901[a] ). Plaintiffs' affidavits stating that they recalled working with at least fifty other workers established that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (CPLR 901[a][1] ; see Galdamez v. Biordi Constr. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 357, 855 N.Y.S.2d 104 [1st Dept. 2008] ). The commonality prerequisite is met since all members of the class allege that defendant Three Generations Contracting, Inc. failed to pay the required prevailing wage and supplemental benefits owed to them (Orgill v. Ingersoll–Rand Co., 110 A.D.3d 573, 574, 973 N.Y.S.2d 205 [1st Dept. 2013] ). We reject defendant RLI Insurance Company's contention that the wages owed to the different trades would be too highly individualized (see Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 420, 421–422, 904 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1st Dept.2010] ). The fact that “different trades are paid on a different wage scale and thus have different levels of damages does not defeat certification” (Kudinov v. Kel–Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d 481, 482, 884 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept.2009] ; see Dabrowski v. Abax Inc., 84 A.D.3d 633, 634, 923 N.Y.S.2d 505 [1st Dept.2011], Nawrocki v. Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 534, 536, 919 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept.2011] ).

Similarly, plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of all class members since they each arise from Three Generations' alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and supplemental benefits (see CPLR 901[a][3] ; see Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 99, 434 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2d Dept.1980] ).

The record supports a finding that plaintiffs and their counsel can adequately represent the class (see CPLR 901[a][4] ; Dabrowski, 84 A.D.3d at 634, 923 N.Y.S.2d 505 ). We find no merit to RLI's contention that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have sufficient knowledge of the claims to serve as class representatives, since the named plaintiffs possess more than the required “general awareness of the claims” at issue (see Brandon v. Chefetz, 106 A.D.2d 162, 170, 485 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept.1985] ).

We note that, as we have previously held, a class action is the “superior vehicle” for resolving wage disputes “since the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court” (Nawrocki, 82 A.D.3d at 536, 919 N.Y.S.2d 11 ; see also Dabrowski, 84 A.D.3d at 635, 923 N.Y.S.2d 505 ).

Plaintiffs have also satisfied the additional factors set forth in CPLR 902 for class certification.

We note that the motion court was not required to apply the “rigorous...