CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

This case involves an ongoing jurisdictional dispute between the Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Association (Plasterers Local 530) and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Aided Trades (Painters Local 1486) concerning 'skimcoating' work at the Nordstrom’s Project. The Plasterers initiated the action after the contractor, Island Taping, Inc., hired the Painters' Local 1486 instead of Local 530. After local and national arbitration attempts failed to resolve the arbitrability issue, the Plasterers requested the District Court to either compel arbitration or assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute and sought a preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that the question of arbitrability was not clearly delegated to the arbitrator and must be decided independently by the Court. A hearing has been ordered to determine if Local 1486 is affiliated with the New York Plan, which would establish arbitrability. The Court also denied the request for a preliminary injunction due to a lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.

jurisdictional disputelabor unionsarbitrationNational Labor Relations Actpreliminary injunctionarbitrabilityunion affiliationskimcoating workconstruction industryfederal court jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n Local 202 v. Board of Trustees of the Plastering Industry Welfare & Pension Trust Funds

This case addresses a dispute between two union locals, Local 202 and Local 60, both affiliated with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association. Following Local 60's termination of a reciprocal agreement that facilitated the exchange of benefit contributions for members working outside their home jurisdiction, Local 202 sued, alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA. The court found that Local 60's refusal to transfer contributions created a 'structural defect' in its benefit plans, which prevented Local 202 members from receiving benefits earned by their labor within Local 60's jurisdiction. Citing the 'sole and exclusive benefit' provision of the LMRA, the court concluded that reciprocity was legally required to prevent unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court granted Local 202's motion for summary judgment and denied Local 60's.

Union DisputeBenefit FundsEmployee BenefitsReciprocal AgreementLabor Management Relations ActERISAStructural DefectSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentInter-union Agreement
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 02 Civ.0032 VM
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2004

Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION

The Campanella brothers, retired participants, sued the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging multiple ERISA violations regarding pension benefit accrual, vesting standards, and credit for workers' compensation. They challenged the Plan's accrual ranges, anti-backloading provisions, and the policy regarding service credit during disability. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, finding that the Plan adhered to ERISA requirements on all substantive points, including minimum accrual standards and vesting. Additionally, claims for interest on delayed benefits and penalties against the Trustees for document production were denied, with the court concluding that no unreasonable delay or bad faith was demonstrated.

ERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionAccrued BenefitsVesting StandardsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationFiduciary DutyPlan Administration
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2001

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Thomasen Construction Co.

The case involved a dispute between the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund and Mason Tenders District Council (plaintiffs) and Thomsen Construction Company, Inc., along with its owner, Stephen Thomsen (defendants). While Thomsen Construction conceded liability for failing to make contributions to the Funds, the central issue was whether Stephen Thomsen could be held personally liable. The court applied New York law concerning an agent's personal liability, which requires clear and explicit evidence of intent to assume personal liability, and considered factors such as contract negotiation and the signatory's role. The court found that the personal liability clause was not negotiated, and Thomsen signed in his official capacity as president, intending to avoid personal liability through incorporation. Consequently, the court ruled that Stephen Thomsen was not personally liable, entering judgment in his favor, although judgment was entered against Thomsen Construction, Inc.

Labor LawEmployee BenefitsERISALMRACorporate LiabilityPiercing the Corporate VeilContract LawAgency LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M & M Contracting & Consulting

The plaintiffs, a group of Mason Tenders District Council Funds and associated entities, along with the Union and its managers, sued M & M Contracting & Consulting and its president, Michael T. Moscato, Jr. The suit, brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, sought to compel defendants to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations regarding monetary contributions, reports, dues checkoffs, and NYLPAC contributions. Following the defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate this judgment, citing excusable neglect due to their attorney's negligence, a meritorious defense, and a lack of personal jurisdiction over Moscato. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their default was willful and dilatory, their defense lacked merit, and personal jurisdiction over Moscato was properly established according to N.Y.C.P.L.R.

Default JudgmentMotion to VacateExcusable NeglectAttorney MalpracticeMeritorious DefensePersonal JurisdictionERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsDues Checkoff
References
10
Case No. 909 F.Supp. 882
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1995

United States v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater NY

The United States and the Secretary of Labor sought partial summary judgment against James Lupo and Joseph Fater, former trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council’s Pension and Welfare Funds, alleging ERISA violations. The defendants were accused of breaching their fiduciary duties through imprudent real estate investments in New York and Florida, specifically by purchasing properties at inflated prices without proper investigation or required expert advice. The Court granted the Government's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Lupo and Fater failed to act as prudent fiduciaries. Additionally, the Court denied Fater's cross-motion for summary judgment and subsequently denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, which included a waived statute of limitations defense. This decision affirmed the trustees' liability for their failure to adequately manage the trust funds.

ERISA violationsFiduciary duty breachPension fund mismanagementWelfare fund investmentsSummary judgmentReal estate investmentsTrustee liabilityPrudent person standardStatute of limitations defenseReconsideration denied
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Mason

Defendant Donald Mason was indicted on federal charges including firearm and drug possession. He filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, arguing violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court determined that the initial encounter with NYPD officers in a public housing building, where Mason was a non-resident, was consensual. His subsequent attempt to flee, coupled with evidence of trespassing, provided officers with probable cause for arrest. The court denied the motion to suppress physical evidence and statements on Fourth Amendment grounds, finding the arrest and search lawful. Additionally, Mason's post-arrest statements were admissible as spontaneous utterances, not resulting from custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warnings.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentMotion to SuppressProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionConsensual EncountersInvestigative DetentionsArrestTrespassingCriminal Procedure
References
35
Case No. 13 NY3d 940
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2010

People v. Rabb

Defendants Reginald Rabb and Steven Mason, operators of P&D Construction Workers Coalition, challenged the People’s eavesdropping warrant application, arguing a failure to exhaust normal investigative measures as required by CPL 700.15 (4). The investigation by the New York County District Attorney’s Labor Racketeering Unit began by targeting Akbar’s Community Services for coercive labor practices, which subsequently uncovered P&D’s similar activities and collusive efforts. Eavesdropping warrants were obtained against Rabb and Mason after initial investigative techniques like physical surveillance and undercover operations were deemed insufficient or dangerous to uncover the full scope of their criminal enterprise. Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the application adequately justified the use of eavesdropping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that there was record support for the lower courts' finding that normal investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

Eavesdropping WarrantWiretapInvestigative ProceduresExhaustion RequirementProbable CauseSuppression MotionEnterprise CorruptionGrand LarcenyLabor RacketeeringOrganized Crime
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 138 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational