PLAINTIFFS, through their attorney Robert K. Erlanger, Esq., as and for their Complaint against defendants, allege as follows:

          1. Plaintiffs are sought-after professional waiters, having been trained in formal dining service and having had extensive experience working up-scale banquets attended by hundreds and hundreds of guests.

          2. Defendant Cipriani Group, Inc. was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          3. Defendant Cipriani USA, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware, is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          4. Defendant Cipriani 42nd Street, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          5. Defendant Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          6. Defendant Cipriani 55 Wall, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          7. Cipriani Group, Inc., Cipriani USA, Inc., Cipriani 42nd Street, LLC, Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC, and Cipriani 55 Wall, LLC (collectively referred to as the "Cipriani defendants"), owned by the Cipriani family of Venice, operate the premier catering organization in New York City. They own and/or operate up-scale banquet facilities in Manhattan, including the prestigious Rainbow Room, the historic Bowery Savings Bank building at 110 East 42nd Street, and formerly, 55 Wall Street.

          8. Defendant M.J. Alexander & Co., Inc. maintains its corporate offices at 78-18 64th Lane, Glendale, New York, in Queens County.

          9. Defendant Michael J. Alexander is the alter-ego of M.J. Alexander.

          10. M.J. Alexander and Michael Alexander were, at all times alleged herein, the Cipriani defendants' fully disclosed agent in all dealings with plaintiffs.

          11. At all times alleged herein, plaintiffs were employed by defendants as professional waiters at the Cipirani defendants' banquet facilities in Manhattan.

          12. The Cipriani defendants supplied M.J. Alexander with: date, time and banquet facility at which plaintiffs and the other service employees were to appear; identity of the party sponsoring the banquet; table layout plan; number of guests; guest attire, e.g., black tie; the precise number of guests at each numbered table; event schedule down to five minute increments; type of dining service; menu details; the precise brands of liquor and wines to be offered; and service assignment details. M.J. Alexander communicated this information from the Cipriani defendants to plaintiffs and the other service employees and had no authority to alter the details of their assignments.

          13. On behalf of the Cipriani defendants, M.J. Alexander hired and terminated plaintiffs and other service employees to work at the Cipriani defendants' banquet facilities, provided mandatory training, paid their wages, compelled them to work under highly restricted work guidelines and rules, including a code governing uniforms, personal appearance, hygiene, and conduct, and scheduled their banquet facility and specific staff assignments.

          14. Each of the Cipriani defendants' banquets at their Manhattan facilities was typically attended by between 200 to 1,500 guests.

          15. At the Cipriani defendants' Manhattan banquet facilities, plaintiffs and other service employees were under the strict direct control and supervision of the Cipriani defendants' maitre d'. The Cipriani defendants had the absolute power to fire plaintiffs and other employees on the spot and to order them about.

          16. At the Cipriani defendants' Manhattan banquet facilities, plaintiffs and other service employees were strictly forbidden to exercise any discretion as to any aspect of their jobs, including but not limited to, work schedule, type and manner of service to banquet customers, conduct, and appearance.

          17. Plaintiffs delivered the Cipriani service, "an unparalleled level of european excellence that the Cipriani family is respected for worldwide." But while the Cipriani family has "achieved legendary status" for their restaurants in New York "by their commitment to the highest standards of food and service," they have also achieved legendary status in New York for their unfair treatment of their service employees who deliver this highest standard of service. The Cipriani defendants' view is that because plaintiffs and other service employees are not union members, they can do whatever they want with them.

          18. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if more fully set forth herein.

          19. The Cipriani defendants entered into written contracts with customers to provide banquet facilities and services.

          20. Banquet customers paid a contract line-item identified as "Food and Beverage."

          21. Banquet customers also paid a contract line-item identified as "Service Charge," typically computed as 22% of the cost of the "Food and Beverage" line-item (For example, attached).

          22. By paying the Service Charge, banquet customers intended that all or a substantial portion of that fee was a gratuity or tip to be paid to plaintiffs and others similarly situated who had provided service during the banquet.

          23. Neither plaintiffs nor the other service employees ever received any gratuity from defendants. Upon information and belief, the gratuities pocketed by defendants from 1998 on have exceeded $10 million.

          24. New York Labor Law ("Labor Law") section 196-d prohibits an employer/special employer from retaining payments intended by customers to be a gratuity for service provided by the employer/special employer's employees and special employees.

25. Labor Law section 196-d, which is incorporated herein, provides:

No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any corporation, or any other person shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. This provision shall not apply to the checking of hats, coats or other apparel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the allowances from the minimum wage for gratuities in the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of article nineteen of this chapter nor as affecting practices in connection with banquets and other special functions where a fixed percentage of the patron's bill is added for gratuities which are distributed to employees, nor to the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.

(emphasis added).

          26. The Labor Law is construed broadly to effect its purpose of protecting the rights of wage-earners.

          27. Plaintiffs were defendants' employees or special employees and were entitled to the protection of Labor Law section 196-d.

          28. By failing to pay to plaintiffs the contractual charges that had been paid by banquet customers, all or a portion of which were intended by the customers to be gratuities to defendants' employees and special employees, defendants fleeced plaintiffs and violated Labor Law section 196-d.

          29. Labor Law section 198 allows plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorneys fees and liquidated damages at 25% of the gratuities or tips owed where the failure to pay gratuities or tips was willful.

30. Labor Law section 198(1-a), which is incorporated herein, provides:

In any action instituted upon a wage claim by an employee or the commissioner in which the employee prevails, the court shall allow such employee reasonable attorney's fees and, upon a finding that the employer's failure to pay the wage required by this article was willful, an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to twenty-five percent of the total amount of the wages found to be due.

          31. Defendants' failure to pay plaintiffs the sums that defendants' customers had intended to be gratuities was calculated and willful.

          32. Each plaintiff is entitled to his/her pro rata share of the service charge paid to defendants by the banquet customers, a 25% penalty on the pro rata share, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

          33. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if more fully set forth herein.

          34. Labor Law section 191 provides that employees are to be paid within seven days of the time their wages earned, but not less than semi-monthly.

          35. Labor Law section 191, which is incorporated herein, provides in part:

a. Manual worker - (1) a manual worker shall be paid weekly and not late than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned....

* * *

          37. Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs as provided by Labor Law 191 and typically paid them two to three months (60-90 days) after their wages had been earned working at the Cipriani defendants' facilities.

          38. Notwithstanding that plaintiffs' services were the crucial element to the success of the Cipriani banquets, the Cipriani defendants' view was that plaintiffs were the lowest on the list of their priorities, and therefore, would be the last to be paid.

          39. Labor Law section 198 allows plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorneys fees and liquidated damages in the amount of 25% of the total wages paid beyond the statutory mandated period where the failure to pay on time was willful.

          40. The manner in which defendants paid plaintiffs was calculated and willful.

          41. Each plaintiff is entitled to a 25% penalty on the wages paid by defendants in violation of Labor Law section 191 and reasonable attorneys' fees.

          WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that they be awarded their pro rata share of more than $10 million in gratuities, 25% liquidated damages on the gratuities not paid, 25% liquidated damages on the wages paid in violation of the New York Labor Law, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

           2. Defendant Cipriani Group, Inc. was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          3. Defendant Cipriani USA, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware, is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          4. Defendant Cipriani 42nd Street, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          5. Defendant Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          6. Defendant Cipriani 55 Wall, LLC was incorporated in New York, is authorized to do business in New York, and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York County.

          7. Cipriani Group, Inc., Cipriani USA, Inc., Cipriani 42nd Street, LLC, Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC, and Cipriani 55 Wall, LLC (collectively referred to as the "Cipriani defendants"), owned by the Cipriani family of Venice, operate the premier catering organization in New York City. They own and/or operate up-scale banquet facilities in Manhattan, including the prestigious Rainbow Room, the historic Bowery Savings Bank building at 110 East 42nd Street, and formerly, 55 Wall Street.

          8. Defendant M.J. Alexander & Co., Inc. maintains its corporate offices at 78-18 64th Lane, Glendale, New York, in Queens County.

          9. Defendant Michael J. Alexander is the alter-ego of M.J. Alexander.

           10. This action is brought on behalf of Bynog and on behalf of each and all other persons similarly situated who were employed as waiters at banquets catered by the Cipriani defendants and their predecessor companies at 55 Wall Street, the Rainbow Room, and 110 East 42 Street in Manhattan from 1997 to the present.

          11. The above-described class is so numerous, upon information and belief consisting of over 350 members, that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable. The names and addresses of many of the plaintiffs are unknown and some of the plaintiffs are located throughout the United States.

          12. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The identical legal question to all plaintiffs is whether the "Service Charge" contract line item, which was customarily computed at 22% of the Food and Beverage contract line item (Contract attached), was in whole or in part a "charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee" within the meaning of New York Labor Law ("Labor Law") section 196-d.

          13. Bynog's claims are typical of the claims of the above-described class -- she was not paid any portion of the "Service Charge" at any time. Bynog will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Over the past three years, Bynog has been employed by defendants as a waiter at events at all three catering locations. She has been outspoken on the issue of the waiters' rights under the New York Labor Law. Bynog also organized the original 24 plaintiffs in the companion action and established a website, www.justice4waiters.com, as a news and interactive forum for the class members and to give them notice of this claim.

          14. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy for the reasons stated above and because all members of the class would share in any recovery, and in the event that the claim is dismissed, any defense verdict would bind all members of the class.

          15. M.J. Alexander and Michael Alexander were, at all times alleged herein, the Cipriani defendants' fully disclosed agent in all dealings with plaintiffs.

          16. At all times alleged herein, plaintiffs were employed by defendants as professional waiters at the Cipirani defendants' banquet facilities in Manhattan.

          17. The Cipriani defendants supplied M.J. Alexander with: date, time and banquet facility at which plaintiffs and the other service employees were to appear; identity of the party sponsoring the banquet; table layout plan; number of guests; guest attire, e.g., black tie; the precise number of guests at each numbered table; event schedule down to five minute increments; type of dining service; menu details; the precise brands of liquor and wines to be offered; and service assignment details. M.J. Alexander communicated this information from the Cipriani defendants to plaintiffs and the other service employees and had no authority to alter the details of their assignments.

          18. On behalf of the Cipriani defendants, M.J. Alexander hired and terminated plaintiffs and other service employees to work at the Cipriani defendants' banquet facilities, provided mandatory training, paid their wages, compelled them to work under highly restricted work guidelines and rules, including a code governing uniforms, personal appearance, hygiene, and conduct, and scheduled their banquet facility and specific staff assignments.

          19. Each of the Cipriani defendants' banquets at their Manhattan facilities was typically attended by between 200 to 1,500 guests.

          20. At the Cipriani defendants' Manhattan banquet facilities, plaintiffs and other service employees were under the strict direct control and supervision of the Cipriani defendants' maitre d'. The Cipriani defendants had the absolute power to fire plaintiffs and other employees on the spot and to order them about.

          21. At the Cipriani defendants' Manhattan banquet facilities, plaintiffs and other service employees were strictly forbidden to exercise any discretion as to any aspect of their jobs, including but not limited to, work schedule, type and manner of service to banquet customers, conduct, and appearance.

          22. Plaintiffs delivered the Cipriani service, "an unparalleled level of european excellence that the Cipriani family is respected for worldwide." But while the Cipriani family has "achieved legendary status" for their restaurants in New York "by their commitment to the highest standards of food and service," they have also achieved legendary status in New York for their unfair treatment of their service employees who deliver this highest standard of service. The Cipriani defendants' view is that because plaintiffs and other service employees are not union members, they can do whatever they want with them.

          23. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if more fully set forth herein.

          24. The Cipriani defendants entered into written contracts with customers to provide banquet facilities and services.

          25. Banquet customers paid a contract line-item identified as "Food and Beverage."

          26. Banquet customers also paid a contract line-item identified as "Service Charge," typically computed as 22% of the cost of the "Food and Beverage" line-item (For example, attached).

           27. By paying the Service Charge, banquet customers intended that all or a substantial portion of that fee was a gratuity or tip to be paid to plaintiffs and others similarly situated who had provided service during the banquet.

          28. Neither plaintiffs nor the other service employees ever received any gratuity from defendants. Upon information and belief, the gratuities pocketed by defendants from 1998 on have exceeded $10 million.

          29. Labor Law section 196-d prohibits an employer/special employer from retaining payments intended by customers to be a gratuity for service provided by the employer/special employer's employees and special employees.

          30. Labor Law section 196-d, which is incorporated herein, provides:

No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any corporation, or any other person shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. This provision shall not apply to the checking of hats, coats or other apparel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the allowances from the minimum wage for gratuities in the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of article nineteen of this chapter nor as affecting practices in connection with banquets and other special functions where a fixed percentage of the patron's bill is added for gratuities which are distributed to employees, nor to the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.

(emphasis added).

          31. The Labor Law is construed broadly to effect its purpose of protecting the rights of wage-earners.

          32. Plaintiffs were defendants' employees or special employees and were entitled to the protection of Labor Law section 196-d.

          33. By failing to pay to plaintiffs the contractual charges that had been paid by banquet customers, all or a portion of which were intended by the customers to be gratuities to defendants' employees and special employees, defendants fleeced plaintiffs and violated Labor Law section 196-d.

          34. Each plaintiff is entitled to his/her pro rata share of the service charge paid to defendants by the banquet customers, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

          WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that they be awarded their pro rata share of more than $10 million in gratuities that well withheld in violation of the New York Labor Law, costs, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.