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

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. 97 Civ. 6399
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Contract. Ass'n of Northern New Jersey v. Sheet Metal Workers'intern. Ass'n

The Sheet Metal Contractors Association (SMCA) sought to enjoin the reaffiliation of Local 22 and the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (SMWIA), alleging racial discrimination and fraudulent inducement, citing violations of federal and New Jersey law. This action is linked to prior court orders in the EEOC litigation (E.E.O.C. v. Local 638) that found unions, including Local 25 (a non-party to this case but involved in EEOC), engaged in discrimination and mandated remedial actions. SMCA contends the proposed reaffiliation would economically disadvantage Local 25 due to differing minority compositions and wage structures, thereby undermining compliance with existing anti-discrimination orders. Despite a special master's prior order barring reaffiliation, the defendants proceeded. The court ordered consolidation of this case with the EEOC litigation, finding common questions of law and fact, and declared the reaffiliation agreement invalid until a ruling on SMCA's preliminary injunctive relief motion.

Racial DiscriminationUnion ReaffiliationInjunctive ReliefConsolidation of ActionsCollective Bargaining AgreementSpecial Master FindingsAll Writs ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt Orders ComplianceEconomic Disadvantage
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cabrera v. A-To-Z Signs

Derek Cabrera was injured on September 18, 2012, while walking underneath a covered walkway at SUNY Purchase when a sign fell and struck him. He sued A-To-Z Signs, Inc., the installer, for negligence, alleging improper installation and use of an inadequate anchoring system. Due to sovereign immunity, Cabrera also filed a separate action against the State of New York (SUNY Purchase) in the Court of Claims. A-To-Z Signs, Inc. sought to have the jury apportion liability for Cabrera's injuries between itself and the State, citing CPLR 1601. Cabrera moved in limine to prevent this, arguing prejudice from the 'empty chair defense' as the State could not be joined in the Supreme Court action. The court, lacking Second Department precedent, followed the Third Department's reasoning in Artibee v Home Place Corp. The court ruled that A-To-Z Signs, Inc. could introduce evidence of the State's liability, and the jury would be charged on apportionment, with the State appearing on the verdict sheet, thereby denying Cabrera's motion in limine.

negligenceapportionment of liabilityCPLR 1601empty chair defensesovereign immunityState of New YorkCourt of Claimspersonal injurymotion in liminejoint tortfeasors
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06975
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2021

WDF Inc. v. Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted plaintiff WDF Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. WDF Inc. successfully demonstrated that Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. breached their subcontract by failing to provide sufficient workers for the project. The court found Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.'s arguments unavailing. Fidelity and Deposit Company Maryland was involved as a third-party defendant in the proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubcontract DisputeAppellate ReviewFailure to PerformJudicial AffirmationContract LawThird-Party ActionConstruction LawNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance Annuity & Apprenticeship Training Funds v. Vic Construction Corp.

The case involves the Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance, Annuity and Apprenticeship Training Funds and the Executive Board of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 (plaintiffs) suing Vic Construction Corporation and Charles Nalbone (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that Vic Construction failed to make payments to the Funds in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and ERISA, and that Charles Nalbone operated Vic Construction as his alter ego. The core dispute revolves around an oral settlement agreement made on January 6, 1993, where Nalbone stipulated to an indebtedness of $26,935.26 and personally guaranteed payment. Defendants later refused to sign a written agreement, citing a subsequent Second Circuit decision in Sasso v. Cervoni which reversed a prior ruling regarding individual liability for corporate ERISA obligations. The court ruled that federal common law should govern the validity of the oral settlement agreement in ERISA disputes, rather than New York's Rule 2104 requiring a writing. Applying factors for determining intent to be bound, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement. The defendants' request to rescind the agreement due to a subsequent change in legal interpretation was denied, as a 'poor prediction of events' or changes in judicial interpretation of statutes do not constitute a mistake warranting rescission. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

ERISAOral Settlement AgreementContract EnforcementFederal Common LawNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesAlter EgoCorporate LiabilityMistake of LawJudicial InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1998

Friscia v. New Plan Realty Trust

Ramapo Sign Co. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The original order granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granted cross-motions for common-law indemnification against Ramapo. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, citing a factual question about the injured plaintiff's work. It also modified the indemnification grants to be conditional upon the plaintiffs' success in the main action, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision regarding indemnification. The appellate court found no evidence that United Retail or Delaware Valley Sign Corp. exercised control over the injured plaintiff's work.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyElevated Work SitesFactual QuestionVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Puma & Sheet Metal Workers'intern. Ass'n

The petitioner, Thomas C. Puma, an owner-member of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union # 137, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent his ouster from the Union. Puma attempted to change his membership status to 'financial core member' but the Union denied this and treated it as a voluntary withdrawal. After the NLRB declined to issue a complaint, Puma filed a petition in district court. The Union moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing Puma was not protected by LMRDA, failed to exhaust internal remedies, and his claims were preempted by the NLRA. The court denied the Union's motion to dismiss, finding jurisdiction under LMRDA and rejecting the preemption and exhaustion arguments. However, the court also denied Puma's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing a lack of demonstrated irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits.

LMRDAUnion MembershipPreliminary InjunctionOwner-Member RightsFinancial Core MemberUnion ExpulsionDue ProcessLabor LawJurisdictionNLRA Preemption
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 569 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