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

Schwarcz v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Plaintiff's association, comprising 138 garment manufacturers in Manhattan, sought a preliminary restraining order against the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and its local branches, along with individual defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants interfered with their business through intimidation, threats, force, and fraud, aiming to compel the employment of only union members following a general strike in July 1910. The court found that the immediate purpose of the strike and the defendants' combination was unlawful, intending to drive non-union workers out of the trade. Consequently, the court partially granted the injunction, prohibiting unlawful picketing, violence, and threats against employees. However, it declined to restrain actions not explicitly threatened in the moving papers and did not issue an injunction against the individual defendants.

InjunctionLabor DisputeStrikeTrade UnionUnlawful ObjectClosed ShopPicketingViolenceRestraining OrderEmployers' Association
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General

The case concerns an application by the Community Service Society (CSS) and Gladys Baez to quash a subpoena issued by the Welfare Inspector General of the State of New York. The subpoena sought privileged communications between Baez and a certified social worker at CSS concerning her marital status and employment, information relevant to an investigation of alleged welfare fraud. Petitioners argued the communications were protected under CPLR 4508. The Inspector General contended Baez waived the privilege by signing a public assistance form and that the communication revealed contemplation of a crime. The court ruled that the signed consent form did not constitute a clear waiver of privilege. It also determined that information about marital status or employment does not inherently reveal the contemplation of a crime for the purpose of the CPLR 4508 exception. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, affirming the privileged nature of the communications, but denied Baez's requests for an injunction and class action certification.

Social worker-client privilegeCPLR 4508Subpoena quashWelfare fraud investigationWaiver of privilegeConfidential communicationsClass action denialExecutive LawSocial Services LawPenal Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

The case concerns plaintiffs R.M. Perlman Inc. and Rebecca Moses, who initiated an action under the NLRA against two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Plaintiffs sought damages alleging unfair labor practices related to the unions' picketing and a proposed "Hazantown Agreement." The central legal question involved whether four specific clauses within the agreement were protected by the garment industry proviso to NLRA § 8(e), thus making the unions' actions lawful. The court meticulously examined each contested clause—the Continuing Obligations, Trimmings, Struck Work, and Trucking Clauses—interpreting them within the context of the Hazantown Agreement and relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court determined that all challenged clauses fell within the protection of the garment industry proviso, concluding that the unions' picketing was not unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

National Labor Relations ActGarment Industry ProvisoUnfair Labor PracticesSummary JudgmentLabor UnionsHot Cargo AgreementsHazantown AgreementSecondary PicketingIntegrated Process of ProductionJobbers
References
19
Case No. Claim No. 134
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Crystal Apparel, Inc.

The Reorganized Debtor, Crystal Apparel, Inc., successfully objected to Claim No. 134 filed by the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which sought $689,291.78 for alleged withdrawal liability. The Bankruptcy Court granted the Reorganized Debtor's motion for summary judgment, disallowing the claim. The court determined that the Fund's '1989 Rules' and '1991 Rules' for imposing withdrawal liability on the Social Insurance Fund were not lawfully adopted by the trustees or properly incorporated into the relevant agreements, thereby failing to satisfy the 'written agreement' requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). The decision emphasized the principles of contract interpretation and cited a prior First Circuit case, Manchester Knitted Fashions, Inc. v. Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which similarly rejected the Fund's arguments.

Bankruptcy LawSummary Judgment MotionClaim DisallowanceMultiemployer PlansWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawTrust Fund AdministrationContract InterpretationLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. United Garment Workers

Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent defendants from issuing circulars to their customers, claiming irreparable business damage. Defendants argued they were not violating any law, citing the Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers case, which held employees had the right to notify trade persons of controversies. The court noted that similar circulars were previously deemed not to constitute a threat or intimidation. While acknowledging the second circular might be more objectionable, the court denied the injunction pendente lite, stating it is not policy to grant such relief when the plaintiffs' right to it is doubtful and the main action can be tried soon. The motion was denied with costs.

InjunctionPendente LiteTrade DisputeCircularsFreedom of SpeechLabor RelationsMotion PracticeIrreparable HarmAppellate Division Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers

The case concerns an injunction sought by an unnamed plaintiff against the United Garment Workers of America and its executive board for distributing injurious circulars to the plaintiff's customers. The circulars, issued due to the plaintiff's alleged discrimination against union members, threatened customers who continued business with the plaintiff, leading to order cancellations and loss of future sales. The court, presided over by Ingraham, J., found that these actions constituted an unlawful injury to the plaintiff's property, referencing People v. Barondess. Citing the need for equitable intervention to prevent continuous harm and avoid multiple lawsuits, the judge granted the motion for the injunction.

injunctionlabor disputetrade unionbusiness interferenceunlawful actsequityproperty injurycircularsemployer discriminationmultiplicity of actions
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 124 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