Vict. Leevson, Michael Leibzon, Matana Enters., LLC v. Aqualife United States, Inc.

Decision Date01 November 2017
Docket Number14–CV–6905
Citation296 F.Supp.3d 503
Parties Victoria LEEVSON, Michael Leibzon, Matana Enterprises, LLC, Katherine Tsigel, Vadkat, Inc., Vladislav Pustov, and Imperial Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. AQUALIFE USA, INC., Aqualife, Inc., Alex Gitelman, Yakov Sionov, and Vladimir Gorbach, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Svetlana Sobel, Sobel Law Offices, 175 Eileen Way, Syosset, NY 11791, 516–496–1903, Fax: 631–532–4828, Email: ssobel@sobellawpc.com, On Behalf of Plaintiffs.

Robert Bondar, Law Office of Robert Bondar, 28 Dooley Street, 3rd. Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11235, 347–462–3262, Fax: 347–462–3261, Email: rbondar@bondarlaw.com, Emanuel Kataev, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8, Lake Success, NY 11042, 516–328–8899, Fax: 516–328–0082, Email: emanuel@mllaborlaw.com, Joseph M. Labuda, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, 3000 Marcus Ave, Suite 3W8, New Hyde Park, NY 11042, 516–328–8899, Fax: 516–328–0082, Email: joe@mllaborlaw.com, On Behalf of Defendants

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ... 508
II. Facts ... 508

A. Defendants' Product and Nature of Industry ... 508

B. Plaintiffs ... 509

C. Claims ... 509

D. Jury Verdict and Rule 50 Motions ... 509

1. Jury Verdict ... 509
2. Rule 50 Motions ... 509

E. Testimony and Evidence ... 510

1. Aqualife's Independent Business Owner Contract ... 510
2. Marketing Plan ... 510
3. Vladislav Pustov ... 510
4. Michael Leibzon ... 511
5. Katherine Tsigel ... 511
6. Victoria Leevson ... 512
7. Yakov Sionov and the Individual Defendants ... 512
III. Law ... 512

A. Rule 50 ... 512

B. Contract Formation and Modification ... 513

1. Intent to be Bound ... 513
2. Assent ... 513
3. Statute of Frauds ... 514

C. Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law ... 514

1. Employee v. Independent Contractor ... 514
i. Tax Return Status and Estoppel ... 515
ii. Worker Misclassification ... 515
iii. Commissioned Salespersons ... 517
iv. Written Consent for Collective Actions ... 517
2. Overtime Pay ... 518
i. "Work" from Home or "On–call" ... 518
ii. Mixed Question of Fact and Law ... 519
iii. New Technology and a Shifting Paradigm ... 519
3. Statute of Limitations ... 520
4. Notice and Statement Requirements ... 520
5. Willfulness and Liquidated Damages ... 521
6. Attorney's Fees and Costs ... 521
7. Pre–Judgment Interest ... 521
8. New York CPLR Interest Calculations ... 521
9. Post–Judgment Interest ... 522
IV. Application of Law to Facts ... 522

A. Plaintiffs Assented to the Terms of the Contract as Consistently Applied ... 522

B. Residual Commission is Barred by the Statute of Frauds ... 523

C. Plaintiffs Leevson and Tsigel are Protected by the FLSA and NYLL ... 523

D. Inside Salespeople ... 524

E. Written Consent ... 524

F. Overtime under the FLSA and NYLL ... 524

G. Compensation for On–Call or Wait Time ... 524

V. Damages ... 525

A. Breach of Contract ... 525

B. FLSA and NYLL ... 525

C. Liquidated Damages ... 525

D. Pre–Judgment Interest ... 525

1. Leevson's Interest ... 526
2. Tsigel's Interest ... 526

E. Post–Judgment Interest ... 526

F. Costs ... 526

G. Attorney's Fees ... 526

H. Damages Chart ... 527

VI. Summation of Rulings on Jury Verdict Findings ... 527
VII. Conclusion ... 528
VIII. Appendixes A–D, Relevant Documents ... 529–32
IX. Appendix E, Jury Charge and Verdict Sheet ... 533
I. Introduction

After a four-week trial and complex jury verdict, this memorandum and order addresses pre-and post-verdict Rule 50 motions.

The case involves: (1) a simple contract question of whether critical terms of an agreement were in effect assented to by the consistent conduct of the parties; on this point the jury verdict, granting damages to the plaintiffs, is set aside; (2) whether employees working and classified as independent entities, but under individual contract and control of the employer were entitled to the protection of state and federal wage laws; on this point the jury verdict, finding the wage laws applicable, is affirmed; and (3) whether employees working or "on-call" for their employer after they physically leave the employer's office, while they are at home and under conditions that impede them from going about their normal life, are entitled to overtime pay; on this point the jury's verdict, finding that they were at work while at home, is affirmed.

II. Facts

A. Defendants' Product and Nature of Industry

Defendant Aqualife USA, Inc., ("Aqualife") sells and services water filtration systems to the Russian speaking community in New York City and its environs. Trial Tr. 1191:21. The company was formed in 2004, along with its subsidiary Aqualife, Inc. Trial Tr. 1190:3–11. It is owned and operated by defendants Yakov Sionov, Vladimir Gorbach, and Alexander Gitelman. Trial Tr. 1190:3–11.

The company employs a number of salespeople, who are paid commissions, as well as office staff, who are paid hourly wages and perform clerical and "telemarketing" work under direction of management. Trial Tr. 1192:1–9. Some employees are required to create independent corporate entities through which they are paid for the services they render. Trial Tr. 1192:15–24.

B. Plaintiffs

All individual plaintiffs were under contract with Aqualife, but were paid through their personal corporations. Plaintiffs Victoria Leevson and her husband, Michael Leibzon, are owners and operators of Matana Enterprises, Inc. ("Matana"). Trial Tr. 1199:1–6. Plaintiff Katherine Tsigel and her husband Vadim Tsigel (who is not a party to this suit) own and operate VadKat, Inc. ("VadKat"). Plaintiff Vladislav Pustov is the owner and operator of Imperial Enterprise Services, Inc. ("Imperial"). Trial Tr. 1197:6–1198:22.

C. Claims

Each individual plaintiff and their corporation sues Aqualife USA, Inc., Aqualife, Inc., and owners Alex Gitelman, Yakov Sionov, and Vladimir Gorbach, individually, jointly and severally.

They assert claims that they were not paid commissions and wages, in breach of their individual contracts.

Plaintiffs Victoria Leevson and Katherine Tsigel also individually claim under state and federal labor laws that they were not paid wages earned and overtime, and not provided with proper wage statements and notices.

D. Jury Verdict and Rule 50 Motions

After four weeks of trial and thousands of pages of exhibits, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims for commissions and wages, overtime pay, and lack of wage statements and notices. See App. E, Jury Instructions and Verdict Sheet.

1. Jury Verdict

For breach of contract, the jury awarded: $5,982 for commissions to Matana; $4,056 for commissions to VadKat; $77,500 for commissions to Imperial; $25,680.54 for hourly compensation and $87,989 for commissions to Victoria Leevson; $5,982.60 for commissions to Michael Leibzon; $48,320.45 for hourly compensation and $159,691.89 for commissions to Katherine Tsigel; and $77,500 for commissions to Vladislav Pustov. Mr. Pustov and his company Imperial were awarded "residual commissions" through 2026. See App. E.

Under the FLSA and the NYLL, the jury awarded: $2,500 for wage notice violations, $2,500 for wage statement violations, and $25,680.54 for overtime pay to Victoria Leevson; and $2,500 for wage notice violations, $2,500 for wage statement violations, and $48,320.45 for overtime pay to Katherine Tsigel. Id.

2. Rule 50 Motions

The defendants orally and in writing made the following motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(b) :

(1) Motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' FLSA and NYLL claims, ECF No. 164, Aug. 17, 2017.
(2) Motion for judgement as a matter of law on plaintiffs' breach of contract claims on the ground that plaintiffs assented to the contract terms offered by defendants, ECF No. 165, Aug. 17, 2017.
(3) Motion for judgement as a matter of law on plaintiffs' breach of contract claims for residual commissions as barred by the statute of frauds, ECF No. 166, Aug. 17, 2017.
(4) Letter in support of motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, ECF No. 167, Aug. 17, 2017.
(5) Reply to plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to defendants third motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 181, Aug. 23, 2017.
(6) Fourth motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against the individual defendants, ECF No. 183, Aug. 27, 2017.
(7) Fifth motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' FLSA and NYLL claims against defendants, ECF No. 184, Aug. 27, 2017.
(8) Sixth motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that plaintiffs Leevson and Tsigel are exempt from overtime requirements as commissioned salespersons, ECF No. 187, Aug. 28, 2017.
(9) Motion for judgment as a matter of law, motion for new trial, ECF No. 200, Sept. 29, 2017.
(10) Reply in support re motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 211, Oct. 22, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed responses to defendants' motions as follows:

(1) Memorandum in opposition to defendants' first motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 170, Aug. 21, 2017.
(2) Memorandum in opposition to defendants' third motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 178, Aug. 23, 2017.
(3) Response to defendants' fifth motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 185, Aug. 28, 2017.
(4) Motion for judgment as a matter of law post-verdict, ECF No. 202, Sept. 29, 2017.
(5) Memorandum in opposition re motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 210, Oct. 17, 2017.
(6) Memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 212, Oct. 23, 2017.

The court reserved judgment on all Rule 50 motions. After the verdict the court adjourned the case so the parties could fully brief and argue all the issues raised in their motions; it requested submission of a form and amount of judgment, including costs, disbursements, interest, penalties, and legal fees. ECF No. 194, Sept. 1, 2017; see also ECF No. 199, Sept. 26, 2017 (Court order directing the contents of parties briefing).

E. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Travel Leaders Grp. v. Corley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 5, 2019
    ...hours expended.” Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp., 368 F.Supp.3d 651, 656-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Leevson v. Aqualife USA, Inc., 296 F.Supp.3d 503, 526 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)). “In making its determination of the percentage reduction to be used, the Court is guided by rough justice principles . . . ......
  • Knox v. John Varvatos Enters. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 17, 2021
    ...Mar. 11, 2019) (889.25 hours awarded in Title VII sexual harassment case with five day jury trial); Leevson v. Aqualife USA, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 503, 526 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (858.25 hours awarded for FLSA case with four-week jury trial), aff'd in relevant part, 770 F. App'x 577 (2d Cir. 2019)......
  • Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 8, 2017
    ... ... 16–CV–2850 (WFK) United States District Court, E.D. New York. Signed ... Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 ... ...
  • Black v. 7714 Entm't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 29, 2022
    ... ... No. 21-CV-4829 (MKB) (TAM) United States District Court, E.D. New York July 29, ... 2005). The Clerk of Court enters ... the default when a defendant “has ... Ins. Co. v. Rock ... Cmty. Church, Inc. , 696 F.Supp.2d 203, 208 (E.D.N.Y ... exercised' by the employer.” Leevson v ... Aqualife USA, Inc ., 296 F.Supp.3d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT