Significant Victory in Gregg, et al. v. Community Care Companions, Inc., et al., CA 25-00643 (4th Dept 2026)

In another major win for homecare workers, Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP, together with Buffalo-based firm Hayes Dolce LLP, obtained a complete reversal of a lower court decision at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. As a result, plaintiffs’ claims that their employer, Community Care Companions, Inc., failed to pay required spread-of-hours and split-shift compensation, and failed to provide mandatory hiring notices, have been reinstated. The decision also advances the law for workers across New York State.

Significantly, the Fourth Department reinstated the workers’ claims under § 195(1) of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), which requires employers to provide employees with written wage notices at the time of hire, containing key information about their pay. The appellate court held that, contrary to a number of lower court decisions, where a state statute expressly grants standing, plaintiffs litigating a claim in state court need not allege actual injury to pursue their claims. This ruling will make it easier for workers throughout New York to vindicate their rights under § 195(1) in state court. As developments in the law surrounding federal constitutional standing doctrine have made it increasingly harder for workers to pursue § 195 claims in federal court, this decision is especially timely.

The appellate court also held that corporate officers can be held personally liable as employers under the NYLL, as long as the corporate officers exercise control over the entity’s day-to-day operations. This holding clarifies existing law, whose ambiguity defense attorneys have long sought to exploit in order to shield individual employers from accountability.

Finally, the Fourth Department reaffirmed New York’s liberal pleading standards, rejecting heightened barriers to entry. This holding is particularly important where, as is the case in many wage-and-hour lawsuits, the employer should be in possession of much of the information that is necessary for workers to advance their claims.

The case was argued by GRM partner Jessica E. Harris. Ms. Harris and GRM associate Eliza I. Schultz were on the brief. The decision can be found here.