No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiffs obtained default judgment against Manhattan Construction Group LLC and LV Construction Services LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court awarded damages totaling $317,694.55 to eight plaintiffs/the estate after the corporate defendants failed to obtain counsel and did not oppose the default motion.
Tormall v. Manhattan Construction Group LLC
What Happened
Eight construction workers sued Manhattan Construction Group LLC and LV Construction Services LLC, claiming the companies failed to pay them properly for their work. This type of violation is called wage theft.
What the Court Decided
The companies never hired lawyers to defend themselves and didn't fight the workers' case. Because of this, the court sided with the workers by default. A judge awarded the eight plaintiffs and one worker's estate a total of $317,694.55 in damages for unpaid wages and related violations.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers have legal protections under federal and New York state laws requiring fair payment. When employers ignore wage violations, courts can order them to pay workers what they owe—plus additional damages. The large settlement demonstrates that wage theft cases can result in significant financial consequences for companies that don't comply with pay laws.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Tormall from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.