Conte v. Tri-State Tech.: Affidavits Are Not “Documentary Evidence” Under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and Pleading Standards for Wage-and-Hour Claims Clarified

1. Introduction

Conte v. Tri-State Technologies, Inc., 238 A.D.3d 704 (2d Dep’t 2025), is the latest wage-and-hour decision from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department. The plaintiffs—Peter Conte, Shamus Doyle, and Brandon Tasso—sued their former employer Tri-State Technologies, Inc. (“Tri-State”) and its owners/officers Robert and Elizabeth Boitel for multiple violations of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The Supreme Court (Nassau County) dismissed six causes of action, prompting this appeal.

The central issues on appeal were:

Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded claims for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and wage statement violations.
Whether defendants’ submissions—particularly an affidavit—qualified as “documentary evidence” warranting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).
Whether claims for wage-notice violations were time-barred under the NYLL’s six-year statute of limitations.
Whether the plaintiffs properly pleaded breach of public-works contracts and frequency-of-pay violations.

The Second Department modified the trial court’s order: it reinstated several wage-and-hour causes of action while affirming dismissal of others. In doing so, the court clarifies (i) the minimal pleading standard for NYLL wage claims, (ii) the limited reach of “documentary evidence” on a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion, and (iii) the scope of NYLL §§ 191, 195(1), and 195(3).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division:

Reversed the dismissal of the first (overtime), second (minimum wage), and fourth (wage statement) causes of action, holding the complaint adequately pleaded each claim under CPLR 3013.
Reinstated Doyle’s portion of the third cause of action (wage-notice violation) because defendants’ affidavit was not “documentary evidence” and did not conclusively refute the allegations.
Affirmed dismissal of Conte’s wage-notice claim as time-barred: the six-year limitations period had expired because his employment began on October 3, 2014.
Affirmed dismissal of the fifth cause of action (breach of public-works contracts) for failing to identify any specific contracts, and dismissal of the sixth cause of action (NYLL § 191) because plaintiffs challenged non-payment, not frequency of pay.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The court relied on a constellation of New York Court of Appeals and Appellate Division precedents:

Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825 (2007) – Reaffirmed the liberal standard on a 3211(a)(7) motion: pleadings are accepted as true and given every favorable inference.
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Bonderman, 31 N.Y.3d 30 (2018) – Emphasized that the ultimate ability to prove allegations is irrelevant at the pleading stage.
Cabrera v. Deadwood Constr., Inc., 226 A.D.3d 743 (2d Dep’t 2024) & Gutierrez v. Bactolac Pharm., Inc., 210 A.D.3d 746 (2d Dep’t 2022) – Both applied the relaxed pleading standard to NYLL minimum-wage and overtime claims and distinguished improper § 191 claims.
Davis v. Henry, 212 A.D.3d 597 (2d Dep’t 2023) – Clarified that affidavits are not “documentary evidence” under CPLR 3211(a)(1).
Badzio v. Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 177 A.D.3d 838 (2d Dep’t 2019) – Confirmed the six-year limitations period for § 195(1) wage-notice claims.
Maldonado v. Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp., 8 A.D.3d 348 (2d Dep’t 2004) – Dismissed breach-of-contract claims that failed to identify the contract at issue.

These cases scaffold the Second Department’s ruling: they define standards for pleading, evidentiary sufficiency on dismissal, and limitations for wage-and-hour statutes.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Pleading Sufficiency (CPLR 3211(a)(7))

The court reiterated New York’s notice-pleading standard (CPLR 3013). A complaint must merely give notice of the transactions and material elements; it need not recite detailed proof. Plaintiffs pleaded that (i) they worked more than 40 hours and were unpaid overtime, (ii) they were not paid minimum wage for all hours, and (iii) their wage statements were inaccurate. That sufficed—“Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus.”

(b) Documentary Evidence (CPLR 3211(a)(1))

An affidavit, by definition, is testimonial and subject to credibility issues; therefore it is not “documentary evidence.” Defendants relied primarily on an affidavit to show a wage notice had been provided, but under Davis v. Henry and Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., such submissions cannot conclusively refute allegations at the pleading stage. Because no “utterly refutative” evidence existed, Doyle’s § 195(1) claim and the § 195(3) claims survived.

(c) Statute of Limitations (CPLR 3211(a)(5))

Conte’s wage-notice claim was unique: the violation accrues when the notice should have been provided—on hiring. Conte was hired on October 3, 2014. Suit filed in April 2022 fell outside the six-year window (NYLL § 198[3]). Plaintiffs failed to invoke tolling doctrines, obliging dismissal as time-barred.

(d) Breach of Public-Works Contracts

Pleading a contract claim requires identifying the contract. Plaintiffs asserted Tri-State failed to pay prevailing wages under unspecified public-works contracts. As in Maldonado, this conclusory allegation was insufficient.

(e) NYLL § 191 Claims

Section 191 regulates the frequency of payment (e.g., weekly for manual workers). Plaintiffs alleged non-payment, not delayed cycles. That misalignment doomed the sixth cause of action.

3.3 Impact

The decision carries practical and doctrinal implications:

Reaffirmation of Liberal Pleading in NYLL Actions – Plaintiffs need only allege specific underpayment facts (e.g., weeks worked 40+ hours). This facilitates early-stage survival of wage claims.
Strict View of “Documentary Evidence” – Litigants cannot rely on affidavits to defeat complaints under CPLR 3211(a)(1). Parties must produce hard, incontrovertible documents (contracts, pay stubs, official records).
Limitations Clarity on § 195(1) – Employers gain certainty: wage-notice claims expire six years after hiring; rolling infractions theory is unavailable.
Channeling § 191 Litigation – The ruling narrows § 191 suits to frequency disputes, routing pure non-payment claims to §§ 198/652 frameworks.
Drafting Lessons for Plaintiffs – Breach-of-contract claims must identify each contract allegedly violated, especially in “prevailing wage” contexts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

CPLR 3211(a)(1): A motion to dismiss arguing “documentary evidence” defeats the claim must attach definitive documents—like contracts or official records—that prove the defense outright. Affidavits are not enough.
CPLR 3211(a)(7): Seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim. Courts assume the complaint’s facts are true and ask only whether, if proven, the plaintiff wins.
NYLL § 195(1): Employers must give new hires a written wage notice (rate, pay day, etc.). Failure gives rise to statutory damages, but the claim accrues on the first day of employment.
NYLL § 195(3): Employers must furnish wage statements (“pay stubs”) accurately listing hours, rates, and deductions each payday.
NYLL § 191: Governs how often employees must be paid (e.g., manual workers weekly). It does not mandate adequate wages—that is covered by other NYLL sections.
Prevailing Wage: On public-works projects, contractors must pay workers rates set by the Department of Labor. To sue, an employee must point to the specific public contract.

5. Conclusion

Conte v. Tri-State Tech. refines New York wage-and-hour litigation at multiple junctures. By holding that (i) affidavits lack “documentary” status under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (ii) succinct NYLL allegations can withstand dismissal motions, the Second Department lowers the procedural hurdles employees face at the pleading stage. Concurrently, it confirms the six-year clock for wage-notice claims and draws clear boundaries around NYLL § 191 and breach-of-contract theories.

Practitioners should view the decision as both sword and shield: employees gain enhanced leverage to advance minimum-wage, overtime, and wage-statement claims, while employers obtain firmer grounds to challenge stale § 195 claims and improperly pled frequency-of-pay allegations. In the broader landscape, Conte underscores New York’s continued commitment to substantive adjudication of wage disputes, resisting premature dismissal unless a defendant produces incontrovertible documentary proof.