Michael J. Redenburg | New York City Criminal Lawyer
Michael J. Redenburg
- Profile LAWPOINTS™97/ 100LAWPOINTS™ measure the overall completeness of a Lawyer's profile. More complete profiles are ranked higher and help visitors select the right lawyer faster.
We help paid Members build more complete and informative profiles.
LAWPOINTS™ do not measure a Lawyer's reputation.
More Info for Lawyers
- No Misconduct Found ✓
- Accepts Credit Cards ✓
- Accepts Lawyer Referrals ✓
- Reviews Pro Bono Cases ✓
Attorney Redenburg has tried numerous criminal cases to verdict and obtained two acquittals in a row in 2013; a felony strangulation trial in Kings County and a Sex Abuse trial in Manhattan Criminal Court.
In reference to Mr. Redenburg's class action work, where he represents employees who are denied minimum wage and/or overtime pay, misclassified as exempt, or misclassified as independent contractors, Attorney Redenburg has handled such matters in the Eastern District of NY, Southern District of NY, Northern District of NY; and has also been admitted pro-hac vice to handle class actions in NJ and Pennsylvania. Along with co-counsel, he has actually recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars for the more than 100 hard working people he has represented.
Additionally, Michael Redenburg regularly represents victims of wrongful arrest, stop and frisk and false arrest in lawsuits against The City of New York in federal court, and has successfully represented dozens of citizens who have been victimized by the NYPD in wrongful arrest/stop and frisk lawsuits.
Mr. Redenburg has been recognized by three (3) different organizations which are invitation only and peer reviewed. In 2014 and 2015 Michael Redenburg was named a SuperLawyer, NY Metro Rising Star by Thomson Reuters and no more than 2.5% of lawyers in a state are given this rating. Attorney Redenburg was also named a Top 40 attorney by American Society of Legal Advocates ("ASLA") in 2014 and 2015 and ASLA limits its membership to less than 1.5% of all licensed lawyers nationwide. Additionally, in 2014 and 2015 Attorney Redenburg was named Top 40 by The National Trial Lawyers, which is invitation only, based on nomination and peer reviewed.
In 2015, Michael Redenburg was also named a "10 Best Attorneys" for the State of NY by the American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys and a "Premier 100 Trial Attorney" by the American Academy of Trial Attorneys.
|Owner & Managing Partner||Michael J. Redenburg, Esq. PC||11 Park Place, Ste. 817, NY, NY 10007||5/2010-present|
|Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center||JD||Law School||2006|
|Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Touro College||Juris Doctorate||Law||06/2006|
|Hofstra University||Bachelor of Business Administration||Finance||05/2003|
|State / Court||Date|
|U.S. District Court, Northern District of NY||2011|
|U.S. District Court, Eastern District of NY||2010|
|U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY||2009|
- Member- New York State Bar Association
Honors & Awards
- 2015, 2014 - SuperLawyers NY Metro Rising Stars
2015, 2014 - The National Trial Lawyers, 2014 Top 40 Under 40
2015, 2014 - American Society of Legal Advocates, Top 40 Under 40
2015 - American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys; 10 Best Attorneys for the State of NY
2015 - American Academy of Trial Attorneys; Premier 100 Trial Attorneys
$500,000.00 Settlement, April 13, 2015. Final approval granted for small class (137) of New York Loss Prevention Managers who worked for Kmart and alleged that they were misclassified as salaried exempt, and therefore denied overtime pay. Action brought as a Rule 23 Class Action under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) in the Northern District of NY. For purposes of settlement, Michael Redenburg, Esq. was appointed class counsel along with co-counsel.
Six Figure Settlement, April 2015 Confidential. Thirteen (13) individuals who alleged that they were misclassified as independent contractors, when they were really employees, recovered their New York overtime pay.
March, 2015 - Confidential False Arrest Settlement, $33,000.00
$75,000.00 - 2015: Confidential Individual Settlement for plaintiff who challenged classification as an independent contractor and alleged that because of the misclassification, the denial of New York minimum wages resulted.
Filed December 31, 2014; Currently Pending Civil Rights/false arrest lawsuit NYC - Street performer alleges that he was falsely arrested by NYPD and also alleges first amendment retaliation; 14-cv-10217, SDNY.
Rishon B. v. City of NY - December 30, 2014: Client accepts City's five-figure settlement to resolve his claims of false arrest resulting in a twenty-one (21) hour detention and claim of excessive force used by the NYPD.
Filed 12/2014: A former carpenter who worked for JVA Industries, Inc. filed a Class & Collective Action Lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that he and the class he seeks to represent were denied overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek. The lawsuit seeks recovery of all unpaid overtime compensation wrongfully withheld in violation of federal and state law, liquidated damages and attorneys fees, costs & expenses.
Filed 10/2014: Former exotic dancer from popular Long Island City club, Scandals, alleges that she was misclassified as an independent contractor and therefore denied minimum wages. She also alleges that her compensation was subject to unlawful deductions in the form of house fees and mandatory tip-outs to other club employees not entitled to share in the dancers' tips. The former stripper seeks to represent a class of all current and former dancers employed by the club since October, 2008.
J.D. v City of NY - July 28, 2014: Brooklyn man accepts City's $25,001.00 Offer of Judgment plus attorneys fees and costs to finally resolve his false arrest lawsuit filed on January 6, 2014.
NY v JG - January, 2014, Manhattan Criminal Court. Client charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Impaired by Drugs, a Misdemeanor. CASE DISMISSED.
NY v RJ - November, 2013, Manhattan Criminal Court. Client charged with PL 130.52 Forcible Touching and PL 130.55 Sexual Abuse in the 3rd Degree. Following a trial, the Judge rendered a verdict: NOT GUILTY, Client Acquitted. Following his acquittal, RJ has filed a civil suit in Federal Court demanding $300,000.00.
NY v OM - July, 2013, Brooklyn Criminal Court: Client charged Assault in the 3rd Degree, Criminal Mischief in the 4th Degree and various other charges - CASE DISMISSED.
NY v ER - July, 2013, Kings County Supreme Court: Felony Jury Trial; Client Charged w/Strangulation in the 2nd Degree, a Class D Violent Felony which is a Hate Crime Specified Offense; Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation; misdemeanor assault and Harassment in the 2nd Degree (a violation and not a crime). After trial, client was Acquitted of Strangulation Second Degree, Acquitted on two counts of Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation, but found guilty of misdemeanor assault and harassment violation. Rather than a prison term which was almost certain if found guilty of Strangulation charge, client was sentenced to probation and had to take a class on anger mgmnt.
Six Figure Settlement - 05/2013: Group of fourteen (14) loan officers who worked for M&T Bank and who alleged that they were misclassified as exempt and therefore denied overtime pay.
Six Figure Settlement - 2013 (Confidential): Mortgage Loan Officers who worked for large financial institution alleged that they were improperly classified as exempt and therefore did not receive overtime pay as entitled to and required by law.
NY v. LL - Client charged with DWAI, VTL 1192.1; DWI (Common Law), VTL 1192.3; VTL 1160(a) & VTL 1163(a). After Kings County Brooklyn Criminal Court trial - defendant found NOT GUILTY and ACQUITTED on all charges.
NY v. TS - Client was charged with Grand Larceny in the 4th Degree, a Class D Felony; Forgery in the 2nd Degree, also a Felony and various other charges stemming from an alleged credit card and banking fraud. After prolonged, and often heated discussions with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, CASE DISMISSED.
NY v. CF - Client charged with Forcible Touching, Assault with Intent to Cause Physical Injury, and various other charges. If found guilty of Forcible Touching, a sex crime, defendant faced up to a year in jail; defendant would have been required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA, the Sex Offender Registration Act; and such registration would have been disseminated to the defendant’s surrounding community, and the general public. After protracted discussions with the handling ADA, and after carefully reviewing the complainant’s hospital records, the State offered a plea bargain. The defendant plead guilty to violating Penal Law Section 240.20, a violation and not a crime; no jail; no probation and no SORA registration required.
NY v. ER- Client charged in a Domestic Violence Case with Menacing in the 3rd Degree and Harassment in the 2nd Degree. The complaining witness/victim was a minor and was cooperating with the Prosecutor. Pre-trial disposition obtained: ACD-Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal.
*Prior Results DO NOT Guarantee a Similar Outcome
- Common Mistakes Made by Employers; Compensable Time of Employees
The fact of the matter is most employees are entitled to overtime pay for all hours they work in excess of forty in a workweek. Unfortunately, hardworking people are sometimes denied compensation for the time they spend working for an employer. Employers may give you a title - such as "independent contractor," or tell you that you are "exempt" in an attempt to avoid properly compensating you as an employee, entitled to overtime; and to avoid paying payroll taxes. At the end of the day, your duties and the underlying relationship will govern; with the decision of whether or not you are actually an employee entitled to wages and overtime, ultimately being for a Federal Judge to decide.
MISCLASSIFYING EMPLOYEES AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
The FLSA does not apply in the absence of an employer-employee relationship
An "employer" is defined as "any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's employees." 29 U.S.C. 203(d).
Definition is very broad in scope and given the remedial purpose of the Act is also broadly interpreted. Owners, corporate officers, and even supervisors with direct control over the work performed by an employee have been deemed employers. Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983). Individuals who exercise managerial control over employee compensation or work situations have been found to be employers and jointly and severally liable for FLSA violations. Dole v. Elliot Travel and Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1991).
Different courts and the U.S. Department of Labor consider different factors when determining whether someone qualifies as an employee or an independent contractor. The traditional legal test that establishes a true independent contractor relationship is called the "economic reality test."Other courts have used a hybrid test which combines the "economic reality" test with a "right to control" test.
Your employer may try to cheat you out of minimum wages and overtime pay by telling you that you're an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay premiums for time worked beyond forty (40) hours in a workweek. Telling an employee that they're an independent contractor when in fact, the employee is an integral and necessary part of the employer's business is another common scam used by employers to avoid paying employees minimum wage, overtime pay, NY unemployment insurance and avoid payroll & other taxes. By mislabeling employees as independent contractors, employers may also deprive workers of many protections the workers would otherwise be entitled to as employees. Some of the more common positions where employers often try to call their employees independent contractors are exotic dancers a/k/a strippers and drivers.
Employees performing work on federal, state and municipally funded construction jobs are typically entitled to compensation at no less than the “prevailing wage” rates that are deemed to be prevailing in the locality where the work is performed. New York State’s Department of Labor and New York City’s Office of the Comptroller established and regularly update prevailing wage rates based on category of employment within various counties. The New York State Department of Labor’s schedules are available here and the New York City Comptroller’s Office’s schedules may be obtained here. Further, any attempt to require employees to return any portion of their wages constitutes an unlawful kickback.
City and state prevailing wage schedules typically require employers to pay the base prevailing wage, a significant “supplement” intended to cover retirement, healthcare and other employee benefit programs, and daily overtime, shift differentials and double-time for work performed on certain holidays. Contractors and other employers who win public works projects but do not pay their employees the legally-required prevailing wages may be prosecuted criminally.
|Closed|| 9:00 am|
| 9:00 am|
| 9:00 am|
| 9:00 am|
| 9:00 am|
Available Nights And Weekends For Arraignments
Michael J. Redenburg has been a Premium Member since June 19, 2010.
Lawyers with longer memberships tend to have more experience so we use the Membership date to help prioritize lawyer listings on search pages.
|Verified Credentials||Date Verified|
|(2003) Bachelor of Business Administration, Hofstra University. Verified with DegreeVerify.||June 22, 2010|
|(2007) Licensed as Attorney in New York. Verified with New York State Unified Court System.||June 21, 2010|
Above credentials have been verified independently by Lawyer.com.
As a service to our visitors and members, Lawyer.com displays the credentials for Premium Lawyer Profiles which Lawyer.com has independently verified. These are displayed at the at the 'Verified Credentials' table. Lawyer.com independently verifies these credentials when a lawyer signs up for a Premium Lawyer Profile. Each Premium Profile lawyer also certifies that they are licensed to practice as an attorney in their state, that they are in good standing with their applicable bar, and that they will notify Lawyer.com if this changes while they have an active profile.
Fee: Defense of criminal matters are usually handled on a flat-fee basis. All major credit cards are accepted, and payment plans are available for those who qualify.
Service Type: Private
Lawyer.com has verified the credentials of this lawyer. To recommend or link to this lawyer as a trusted attorney, we have provided a list of sample links. Please choose the one that meet your needs.
Want a Premium Customized Photo Badge?
Call Toll Free: 800-620-0900
Image Link 1
Image Link 2
Image Link 3
Image Link 4
Image Link 5
Image Link 6
Image Link 7
Image Link 8
Text Link 1
Text Link 2
32 Broadway, Suite 811
New York, NY 10004
32 Broadway, Suite 811
New York, NY 10004
Lawyer.com has verified the credentials of this lawyer. To recommend or link to this lawyer as a trusted attorney.