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

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. Tripodi

Plaintiff Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO (Local 38) sued defendant Anthony Tripodi for $21,000 under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Tripodi filed a counterclaim for damages exceeding $50,000, alleging Local 38 breached its duty of fair representation by failing to enforce a collective bargaining agreement after his layoff. Local 38 moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim, asserting it was filed beyond the applicable six-month statute of limitations, borrowed from Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court, applying precedent from DelCostello and Phelan, determined that Tripodi's claim accrued no later than April 1993, making his counterclaim, filed in January 1995, at least fourteen months late. Consequently, the court granted Local 38's motion, dismissing Tripodi's counterclaim.

Labor-Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCounterclaimUnionCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 38

Hana, the plaintiff, filed an action against Local 38, the defendant, seeking money damages for work stoppages in February 1972. This dispute had previously been subject to an arbitration proceeding by a Joint Adjustment Board Panel, which decided in August 1972 that Local 38 violated the agreement but awarded no specific damages. Hana did not appeal this arbitration decision within the statutory timeframe provided by New York CPLR § 7511(a) and 9 U.S.C. § 10. The court found that Hana's current action was a belated attempt to set aside or modify the arbitration decision and was untimely. Therefore, the arbitration ruling was deemed res judicata, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageRes JudicataMotion to DismissTimelinessCPLR 7511Federal Arbitration ActLabor DisputePanel Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02311 [237 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Castellon v. 38 E. 85th St., Inc.

The plaintiff, Elder Castellon, was injured on a job site while moving an air compressor and sandblasting equipment when a hose disconnected, striking him in the face with air and sand. He sued the premises owner, 38 East 85th Street, Inc., and the general contractor, Retail Project Management of NY, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) for failing to provide adequate eye protection and ensuring safety equipment use, specifically citing 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (3) and 23-1.8 (a). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding the defendants violated the cited Industrial Code provisions, which proximately caused the accident.

Workplace SafetyPersonal InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsEye ProtectionSandblasting AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 241(6)Construction Site InjuryNondelegable Duty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 98 Civ. 5862, 99 Civ. 10963
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2000

Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. Hollywood Heating & Cooling, Inc.

Plaintiff Local Union No. 38 (Local 38) initiated two separate actions against Defendant Hollywood Heating & Cooling, Inc. (Hollywood) under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Local 38 sought to confirm three arbitration awards, which stemmed from Hollywood's violations of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by hiring nonunion employees and failing to make required fund contributions. Hollywood attempted to challenge the awards, citing fraudulent inducement, coercion, and repudiation of the CBA, and also moved to dismiss one of the actions. The court, however, rejected Hollywood's arguments, affirming that the arbitrators acted within their authority and that the awards drew their essence from the CBA. Consequently, the court granted Local 38’s motions for summary judgment in both actions, confirmed all arbitration awards, and awarded Local 38 attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party.

Collective BargainingArbitration ConfirmationLabor-Management Relations ActNLRA ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantUnion RightsEmployer Non-ComplianceContract RepudiationAttorneys' Fees AwardFederal Court Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,706 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