Nawrocki v. Proto Construction & Dev. Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*535Plaintiffs meet the requirements of CPLR 901 (a) (4) to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The record reveals no conflict of interest between the class members and the class representatives. Indeed, plaintiffs seek the same relief as the class members — to receive the wages and benefits allegedly owed to them under public works contracts. The fact that plaintiffs only worked for defendants until 2004 does not preclude them from serving as the proposed class representatives of those employees who were employed by defendants in 2007, because defendants have not disputed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weinberg v. Hertz Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Weinberg v. Hertz Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Tanzer v. Turbodyne Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Ramos v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LPDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2011
- Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Stecko v. RLI InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Dabrowski v. Abax Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Ferrari v. The Natl. Football LeagueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.