Court Opinion

ID: 9942021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:56.266317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.904886
License: Public Domain

Best Work Holdings (N.Y.) LLC v Jia Ivy Ma
               2024 NY Slip Op 30480(U)
                    February 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 654826/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          654826/2022
             BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         004
                                                 -v-
             JIA IVY MA, YUN TOMMY LI                                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
            56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       DISMISSAL                        .

                      Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Ma’s counterclaims is granted.

            Background

                      Plaintiff owns 72 Wall St, a 72-story building and alleges that defendant Jia Ivy Ma

            (hereinafter “Ma”) worked for both plaintiff’s parent and plaintiff. It claims that during a

            renovation project she engaged in fraud by creating fake contracting companies and invoices.

            Specifically, plaintiff contends that Ma created companies with names similar to contractors who

            actually did work and that defendant Li (who held himself out as a contractor) submitted fake

            invoices as part of this scheme.

                      This Court previously denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and defendant Ma

            subsequently alleged counterclaims for 1) overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act

            (“FLSA”), 2) overtime wages under New York’s Labor Law, 3) unpaid wages under the FLSA,

            4) unpaid wages under the Labor Law, 5) violation of wage statement requirements under the

            Labor Law and 6) violation of notice and record keeping requirements under the Labor Law.
             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                                     Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   Plaintiff’s central argument with respect to the first four counterclaims is that Ma served

            in a managerial role and, therefore, she is not entitled to recover under her counterclaims for

            unpaid wages under the Labor Law or the FLSA. It points to numerous documents that it claims

            constitute documentary evidence that she was a manager, including documents that she drafted

            (such as her resume and emails). Plaintiff also emphasizes that Ma holds a specific type of work

            visa (an L-1A visa) that required her to submit an application to the U.S. Citizenship and

            Immigration Service that documents her managerial responsibilities.

                   With respect to counterclaims five and six, plaintiff contends that Ma’s answer does not

            include enough allegations. It insists that Ma does not have standing because she did not describe

            what injury she suffered from plaintiff’s alleged failure to turn over wage statements or

            statements detailing her rate of pay. Plaintiff points to various cases in New York federal courts

            that require more of a showing to sustain claims based on these record-keeping Labor Law

            provisions.

                   In opposition, defendant submits only a memorandum of law in which she insists that this

            case is merely a means of harassment. She insists that plaintiff failed to meet is burden to

            establish documentary evidence. Ma argues that although she held an executive position, her

            actual duties were not those that are subject to an exemption under the FLSA or the Labor Law.

            She claims she had no ability to hire employees and handled the personal affairs of Fang’s (the

            parent company) CEO. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s affidavit cannot serve as the basis for a

            motion based on documentary evidence.

                   In reply, plaintiff insists its documents show that Ma is an exempt employee under both

            the FLSA and the Labor Law. It also argues that she lacks standing to pursue the recordkeeping

            and notice counterclaims as she did not allege a concrete injury from the alleged lack of notice.

             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                  Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                           2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            Discussion

                   On a “motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence,

            such motion may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes

            plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v

            Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 NY2d 314, 326, 746 NYS2d 858 [2002]).

            The First Four Counterclaims

                   The central issue on this branch of the motion is whether plaintiff met its burden to

            submit documentary evidence to show that Ma falls within the administrative exception, such

            that she is not entitled to bring these counterclaims. “[T]o constitute documentary evidence, the

            papers must be ‘essentially undeniable’ and support the motion on its own” (Amsterdam Hosp.

            Group, LLC v Marshall-Alan Assoc., Inc., 120 AD3d 431, 432, 992 NYS2d 2 [1st Dept 2014]).

            “As Professor Siegel recognizes, ‘even correspondence’ may, under appropriate circumstances,

            qualify as documentary evidence. In our electronic age, emails can qualify as documentary

            evidence if they meet the ‘essentially undeniable’ test (id. at 433).

                   The FLSA and New York’s Labor Law both contain exemptions from overtime

            requirements for certain employees. The first requirement is that employees must meet a

            threshold of weekly pay ($684 under the federal regulations [29 CFR § 541.200(a)] and $1,125

            under New York’s regulations [12 NYCRR § 142-2.14(c)(4)]). Ma’s answer alleges that she met

            this threshold (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ¶¶ 33, 34).

                   Monetary thresholds are not the only requirement. In addition, “the employee's primary

            duty must consist of the performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to

            management policies or general business operations of his employer” and “the employee must

             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                  Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                           3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            exercise discretion and independent judgment in executing his duties” (Klein v Torrey Point

            Group, LLC, 979 F Supp 2d 417, 425 [SDNY 2013]).

                    The Court finds that Ma is subject to the administrative exception based on the evidence

            submitted by plaintiff that utterly refutes Ma’s allegations in the counterclaims. Among the

            many, many documents plaintiff submits is a resume that it alleges was drafted by Ma (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 73 at 42). Here, she identified her title as Manager of the Administrative and Asset

            Department and that she would “Oversee the everyday operation and functions of the company”

            as well as that she would “perform budget control” (id.). Ma also insisted she was “responsible

            for 72 Wall St. Project’s construction management, design, [and] purchas[ing]” (id.).

                    Plaintiff also pointed to an email thread discussing Ma’s visa renewal application

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58). It alleges that Ma has an L1-A visa, which required that she be a

            manager. In the email, Ma is asked to update her job description “to highlight her managerial

            effectiveness and abilities” (id. at 8). Plaintiff argues that Ma edited this description to detail her

            managerial role and that the description read, in part, that “It is clear that Ms. Ma’s time will be

            devoted 100% to essential business decision making and general policy strategy planning and

            that she is at the management level of the corporation chain. Her position at Best Work is

            therefore managerial in nature” (id. at 13). Plaintiff contends that Ma received three renewals of

            this visa in 2016, 2018 and 2020 and includes applications in support of this motion. Plaintiff

            points to the 2018 and 2020 applications that detail her administrative and managerial roles.

                    In this Court’s view, plaintiff’s submissions leave no doubt that Ma was a manager.

            These documents demonstrate that her title and responsibilities were that of an executive. And,

            most importantly, the fact is that her legal status in the United States was based on her role as a

            manager as that is the type of visa she secured. The Court recognizes that Ma argues that her

             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                     Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                            4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            employer prepared these visa applications, but plaintiff included an affidavit from a Fang

            employee in which he insists that Ma reviewed all of these applications (NYSCEF Doc. No. 53,

            ¶ 4). The fact is that these official documents sent to a government agency and Ma’s resume

            (which she drafted) all leave no doubt that she served as a manager with significant discretion.

                   Although the affidavit submitted by plaintiff from a Fang employee (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            53) cannot constitute documentary evidence on its own, the affidavit can provide context for the

            documents attached to it. And these documents are, in this Court’s view, sufficient.

                   Critically, Ma did not submit an affidavit in opposition to the instant motion to refute

            these documents. That her verified counterclaims contain generalized allegations that she was

            not an executive is not sufficient because Ma did not directly refute the papers (and their

            exhibits) submitted by plaintiff on this motion. For instance, Ma did not deny that she

            participated in the preparation of the visa applications, that she highlighted and edited her

            managerial positions on those applications or that her resume contained significant details about

            her executive role. Ma’s submission of an affidavit in a prior motion is similarly unavailing.

                   While the standard for what constitutes documentary evidence is quite substantial, the

            Court simply cannot overlook unrebutted documents all of which show that Ma was a manager

            for plaintiff. Without an affidavit from Ma, her objections to these documents ring hollow. The

            fact that her attorney claims that the records submitted by plaintiff in the moving papers “do not

            resemble official records” is not a basis to deny the motion. Ma did not dispute any of the

            allegations here, including that she drafted a resume that said she was a manager. Nor can Ma’s

            attorney dispute the visa application process as he lacks personal knowledge on that issue.

             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                   Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            Wage Statements and Recordkeeping

                   The key analysis on these two counterclaims (five and six) is whether Ma stated

            cognizable counterclaims. As an initial matter, the Court finds that Ma’s answer contains

            contradictory allegations that compel the Court to dismiss these claims. Ma’s counterclaims

            detail that she knew, at least approximately, how much she worked (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32, ¶¶

            31, 32). And she also appeared to know her salary (id. ¶¶ 33, 34). Therefore, the Court fails to

            see how Ma can assert counterclaims based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to turn over wage

            statements or information about her rate of pay.

                   And Ma’s admissions about her knowledge concerning her pay constitutes another

            ground to dismiss these counterclaims. Plaintiff cites to a federal case in the Eastern District of

            New York which held that a plaintiff lacked standing to bring a failure to provide a wage

            statement claim without demonstrating “a concrete harm” from this failure (Sanchez v Ms. Wine

            Shop Inc., 643 F Supp 3d 355, 373 [ED NY 2022]). This decision appears to have stemmed, in

            large part, from a recent United States Supreme Court case, which held that “Importantly, this

            Court has rejected the proposition that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact

            requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that

            person to sue to vindicate that right” (TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 594 US 413, 426, 141 S Ct

            2190, 2205, 210 L Ed 2d 568 [2021] [internal quotations and citation omitted]).

                   Applying that standard here, Ma simply did not identify a concrete injury from plaintiff’s

            purported failure to turn over wage statements or rate of pay information. Therefore, she cannot

            satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement solely by citing to these Labor Law provisions.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

             654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                    Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 004

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654826/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Ma’s counterclaims is granted.

                   2/13/2024                                                              $SIG$
                     DATE                                                         ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                     X   GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                   □
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

            654826/2022 BEST WORK HOLDINGS (NEW YORK) LLC vs. MA, JIA IVY ET AL                     Page 7 of 7
            Motion No. 004

                                                          7 of 7
[* 7]