allows Starbucks to avoid paying the baristas and shift supervisors at the expense of ASMs. Which one of these interpretations is most consistent with Sarniento’s command liberally to construe § 196-d in the employees’ favor is not obvious and involves state policy judgments best decided in the first instance by the New York Court of Appeals. See Joseph v. Athanasopoulos, 648 F.3d at 67. C. Certification As explained supra, existing state case-law on the questions identified is sparse and insufficient to permit us to predict with confidence how the New York Court of Appeals would construe New York Labor Law and the Department of Labor’s regulations as they apply in this case. See 10 Ellicott Square Court Corp. v. Mountain Valley Indem. Co., 634 F.3d 112, 125-26 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the first certification factor is
holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action holding that certification is appropriate if the new york court of appeals has not squarely addressed an issue and other decisions by new york courts are insufficient to predict how the court of appeals would resolve it internal quotation marks omitted recognizing in a new york diversity action that the job of the federal courts is to give the fullest weight to the pronouncements of the new york court of appeals to have a proper regard to relevant rulings of other courts of the state and where appropriate give limited consideration to relevant cases from other jurisdictions recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york