Summary
In Ansah v AWI Security & Investigation, Inc. 129 A.D.3d 538 [1st Dept 2015]), the lower court, on summary judgment, held that the court had insufficient documentary evidence, i.e., the relevant contracts, to determine whether plaintiffs' could recover prevailing wages.
Summary of this case from Perez v. Long Island Concrete Inc.Opinion
2015-06-16
Samuel ANSAH, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. A.W.I. SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Whitestone Construction Corp., Defendant.
David N. Singer & Associates, LLP, New York (David H. Singer of counsel), for appellants. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
David N. Singer & Associates, LLP, New York (David H. Singer of counsel), for appellants. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered April 11, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the cross motion of defendants A.W.I. Security and Investigation, Inc., Adaze W. Imafidon, and any other entities affiliated with or controlled by them, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves and others who worked as security guards and fire safety workers for defendants to recover prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, and overtime pay in connection with work they performed on various public construction projects. The court properly denied the motion for summary judgment as premature (CPLR 3212 [f] ), since the merits of plaintiffs' claims cannot be determined prior to production of the relevant public work contracts. Moreover, the parties presented conflicting affidavits concerning the nature of the work performed by plaintiffs, which would preclude summary judgment.
Appellants' argument that the contracts require arbitration, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved ( Diarrassouba v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 123 A.D.3d 525, 999 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1st Dept.2014] ). Even if the argument were preserved, it would fail as a matter of law since plaintiffs never agreed to arbitrate (Matter of Belzberg v. Verus Invs. Holdings Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 626, 630, 977 N.Y.S.2d 685, 999 N.E.2d 1130 [2013] [“nonsignatories are generally not subject to arbitration agreements”] ).