Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Abalene Decorating, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-02559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Abalene Decorating, Judge Castel denied City View’s request to pause enforcement pending appeal.
City View Blinds of N.Y., Inc.’s request to pause enforcement was denied. The plaintiffs—trustees of the identified employee benefit funds and the Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York—could continue seeking enforcement of the underlying judgment, including the required audit.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Abalene Decorating, City View Blinds of N.Y., Inc. asked the court to pause enforcement of a $92,589.86 judgment while it appealed the denial of its request to vacate a default judgment. The judgment concerned unpaid employer contributions and required an audit of City View’s books and records.
The court applied four factors for deciding whether to pause a judgment during an appeal. It found no showing that City View would suffer harm that money could not repair, no such harm to the plaintiffs from the delay, and no substantial possibility that City View would succeed on appeal. The court also found a strong public interest in collecting delinquent employer contributions owed to employee benefit plans.
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied City View’s emergency application to pause enforcement. The opinion does not change the underlying judgment or decide the appeal.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:20-cv-02559
- P. Castel
- May 17, 2021
Background
City View Blinds of N.Y., Inc. filed an emergency application to stay, meaning temporarily pause, enforcement of a judgment while it appealed the court’s April 13, 2021 order denying its motion to vacate a default judgment. The underlying judgment was entered on October 7, 2020, totaled $92,589.86, and required the plaintiffs to audit City View’s books and records.
The underlying claims sought unpaid employer contributions to union pension, welfare, and annuity funds. The opinion identifies the claims as arising under sections 502 and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The contributions covered December 22, 2013, through December 31, 2018.
The Court’s Analysis
The court applied a four-factor test for a stay pending appeal:
1. Harm to City View. The court found no showing of harm that could not be repaired later with money. It stated that a corporation’s payment of a monetary obligation generally is not irreparable injury, even if it causes related economic harm.
2. Harm to the plaintiffs. The court considered the delay in receiving the contributions owed to the plaintiffs, including the trustees of union pension, welfare, and annuity funds. It concluded that the delay likewise was not irreparable harm because eventual payment would make the plaintiffs whole.
3. Potential success on appeal. Although City View identified the issues it wanted to raise, the court found that City View had not shown a substantial possibility of success on appeal. The court relied on its earlier 15-page opinion and order denying the motion to vacate and noted that City View devoted little effort to showing that decision would be overturned.
4. Public interest. The court found a strong public interest, reflected in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, in ensuring that delinquent employer contributions are paid to employee benefit plans.
Disposition
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered that City View’s application in its emergency order to show cause was DENIED. The opinion addresses only the request to pause enforcement pending appeal; it does not decide the appeal itself or alter the underlying judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.