General Employment Law

Diaz v. Romano Cleaners Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners, and Nar Dry Cleaning, Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners, and Family Drive-In Cleaners of Bayside Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners, and Nicholas Romano, individually; Index No.:2:26-cv-01655-ST

On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff Diaz, by and through her attorneys, Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District, against, Romano Cleaners Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners (“Romano Cleaners”), and Nar Dry Cleaning, Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners (“NAR Dry Cleaning”), and Family Drive-In Cleaners of Bayside Inc. d/b/a Romano Drive-In Cleaners (“Family Drive-in Cleaners”), (all three, together where appropriate, as “the Entity Defendants”), and Nicholas Romano, individually, (together with the Entity Defendants, where appropriate, as “Defendants”), alleging upon knowledge as to herself and his own actions, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

Plaintiff worked for Defendants – – three legally distinct New York corporations that together operate as a single enterprise that runs at least three dry cleaners, one in Nassau County and two in Queens County, and the enterprise’s owner and day-to-day overseer – – as a counter clerk from March 25, 2025, until February 9, 2026.  As described below, throughout her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week.  Yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at her regular rate of pay for each hour that she worked.  Thus, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at her overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for the hours that she worked over forty in a week.  Defendants further violated the New York Labor Law by failing to furnish Plaintiff with any wage notice at the time of her hire or with any wage statement on each payday, let alone an accurate notice or statement.  Defendants paid and treated all of their non-managerial employees in the same manner.

If any individual is or has previously been an employee of the Defendants named in the lawsuit and/or has information that may be relevant to this case, please contact Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as soon as possible through one of our websites, www.employmentlawyernewyork.com or www.516abogado.com, or any of our phone numbers: (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, or (212) 679–5000.

Published by
Borrelli & Associates

Recent Posts

Castro v. Taier New York Inc., and Weiye Li a/k/a Guo Xiang Li, individually, and Hanson Wong a/k/a Yudi Wang, individually, Docket No.: 1:26-cv-01532

Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the United States District Court Eastern District…

1 week ago

$180,000.00 – Sexual Harassment, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation

August 2026 Firm represented a female employee against her former employer for sexual harassment, gender…

1 week ago

Top Questions to Ask Before Hiring an Employment Lawyer in NYC

Choosing an employment lawyer is a decision that deserves some thought. If you are dealing…

2 weeks ago

Obaoye v. Metro Care Management LLC d/b/a Essen Health Care, Docket No.: 1:25-cv-4920-MKV

Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the United States District Court Southern District…

3 weeks ago

What Are Your Rights After a Workplace Injury or Unsafe Conditions in New York?

Getting hurt at work can be frightening enough without worrying about your job, your paycheck,…

3 weeks ago

$150,000.00 – Race, Sex, Age and Religious Discrimination & Retaliation

April 2026 Nance v. The City of New York, et al. Docket No: 24-CV-08228 Firm…

3 weeks ago