continued use of the interstate mails, telegraph, telephone or similar instrumen-talities for communication across State lines are covered by the act. This does not mean that any use by an employee of the mails and other channels of communication is sufficient to establish coverage. 29 C.F.R. § 776.10(b). Based on the current record, it appears that any use of interstate communications was not a regular part of Plaintiffs duties. In addition, this Court must note that the Amended Complaint makes no mention of Plaintiffs alleged “interstate” communications, and Plaintiff has not attached an affidavit or other materials that would support her claim that she regularly spoke to vendors and processed credit card payments. See Xelo v. Mavros, 2005 WL 2385724, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2005) (<HOLDING>); cf. Thorne v. All Restoration Servs., Inc.,
holding that bank was not an initial transferee where transferor exercised complete discretion regarding deposits to and disbursements from the account and he was entitled to possession of all account funds upon demand holding the defendant properly convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery against bank employees even though the defendant robbed only the bank holding that states may exercise their supervisory power to take custody of bank savings deposits holding that a waiter at a local restaurant was not engaged in commerce even though he made bank deposits for defendants holding that deposits of forged checks exposed banks to risk of loss even though they recovered the funds