A recent lawsuit alleges that a local deli failed to pay overtime wages and did not provide required wage documentation to one of its former employees, raising questions about compliance with federal and state labor laws. The complaint was filed by Miguel Peralta in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026, naming 20 Avenue A Inc., doing business as Fancy NY Grill & Deli, and Mugahed Zandani as defendants.
According to the court filing, Peralta worked as a deli worker at Fancy NY from approximately March 2022 through January 23, 2026. During his employment, he claims to have worked up to fifty-seven hours per week but was paid only at his regular hourly rate for all hours worked—including those exceeding forty hours each week. The complaint states that “Defendants paid him on a straight-time basis that failed to compensate him with overtime pay at 1.5 times his regular hourly rate for hours worked over forty each workweek.” In addition to the alleged failure to pay overtime, Peralta asserts that he did not receive required wage notices upon hiring or when his wage rate changed, nor did he receive accurate wage statements with each payment.
The suit outlines several specific allegations regarding Peralta’s work schedule and compensation. From March 2022 through October 2025, Peralta says he regularly worked ten-hour shifts from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., six days per week (Sunday through Friday), totaling about fifty-seven hours weekly. From November 2025 until the end of his employment in January 2026, he reportedly worked nine-hour shifts during the same days, totaling around fifty-one hours per week. Throughout this period, Peralta alleges that he was paid between $16 and $20 per hour depending on the year but never received an increased rate for overtime hours.
The complaint further alleges that defendants distributed part of Peralta’s wages via checks issued by 20 Avenue A Inc., with the remainder paid in cash. It also claims there was no timekeeping system in place requiring him to record his hours worked. According to the filing, “Defendants failed to furnish Peralta with accurate wage statements with each payment of his wages reflecting…the correct overtime wage rates and total hours worked.” The absence of such records is described as having hindered Peralta’s ability to track what he was owed or challenge alleged unlawful practices sooner.
Peralta’s legal arguments are based on both federal and state law. He brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA). The first claim asserts violation of FLSA requirements for paying one-and-a-half times an employee’s regular hourly rate for all hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. The second claim mirrors this under New York law and supporting regulations. Additional claims focus on alleged failures by defendants to provide written notice of wage rates at hiring or when they changed (as required by WTPA) and failure to provide accurate wage statements with each payment.
The complaint accuses defendants of willfully violating these laws by knowingly failing to pay proper overtime wages or issue compliant notices and statements. It states that “Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the practices described in this Complaint were unlawful” but did not make good faith efforts toward compliance.
In terms of relief sought from the court, Peralta requests a judgment declaring violations of both federal and state labor laws as well as permanent injunctions restraining further violations by defendants. He seeks damages for unpaid overtime wages; liquidated damages under both FLSA and NYLL; statutory damages related to failures in providing wage notices and statements; pre- and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Vivianna Morales and Rachell Henriquez from Pechman Law Group PLLC located at 488 Madison Avenue in New York City. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-01911.
Source: 126cv01911_Miguel_Peralta_v_20_Avenue_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
