Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing Inc.

Decision Date09 November 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–CV–408 (ADS)(WDW).,11–CV–408 (ADS)(WDW).
Citation904 F.Supp.2d 249
PartiesJoseph A. FERRARA, Sr., Frank H. Finkel, Marc Herbst, Denise Richardson, Anthony D'Aquila, Thomas F. Corbett, Thomas Gesualdi, Louis Bisignano, Dominick Marrocco, and Anthony Pirozzi, as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, the Local 282 Annuity Trust Fund, the Local 282 Job Training Trust Fund, and the Local 282 Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Fund, Plaintiffs, v. OAKFIELD LEASING INC., Coral Industries Inc., and Michael N. Babino, Jr., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

904 F.Supp.2d 249

Joseph A. FERRARA, Sr., Frank H. Finkel, Marc Herbst, Denise Richardson, Anthony D'Aquila, Thomas F. Corbett, Thomas Gesualdi, Louis Bisignano, Dominick Marrocco, and Anthony Pirozzi, as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, the Local 282 Annuity Trust Fund, the Local 282 Job Training Trust Fund, and the Local 282 Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Fund, Plaintiffs,
v.
OAKFIELD LEASING INC., Coral Industries Inc., and Michael N. Babino, Jr., Defendants.

No. 11–CV–408 (ADS)(WDW).

United States District Court,
E.D. New York.

Nov. 9, 2012.


[904 F.Supp.2d 253]


Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, by: Peter DeChiara, Esq., Zachary N. Leeds, Esq., of Counsel, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

The Ziskin Law Firm, LLP, by: Richard B. Ziskin, Esq., of Counsel, Commack, NY, for Defendant Oakfield Leasing, Inc.


Dandeneau & Lott, by: Gerald V. Dandeneau, Esq., of Counsel, Melville, NY, for Defendants Coral Industries and Michael N. Babino, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 27, 2011, seeking to recover from

[904 F.Supp.2d 254]

the Defendants, jointly and severally, unpaid contributions owed to the Plaintiff Funds, pursuant to Sections 502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3) and 1145. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which is opposed by two of the three defendants—Coral Industries Inc. (“Coral”) and Michael N. Babino Jr. (“Michael Jr.”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted as to liability, but the request for damages is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiffs, Joseph A. Ferrara, Sr., Frank H. Finkel, Marc Herbst, Denise Richardson, Anthony D'Aquila, Thomas F. Corbett, Thomas Gesualdi, Louis Bisignano, Dominick Marrocco, and Anthony Pirozzi (the “Trustees”), are trustees and fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, the Local 282 Annuity Trust, the Local 282 Job Training Trust Fund, and the Local 282 Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Fund (the “Funds”). The Funds are employee benefit plans created pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) between Building Material Teamsters Local 282, I.B.T. (the “Union”) and various employers. The Funds are jointly administered by a Board of Trustees, comprised of both Union-appointed and employer-appointed members. The Funds provide welfare, pension, annuity, job training, and vacation and sick leave benefits to employees that perform work covered by the CBAs. The Funds are governed by the Funds' Restate Agreement and Declaration of Trust (the “Trust Agreement”), which in turn is incorporated by reference in the CBAs.

Under the terms of the CBAs, the employers are required to contribute to the Funds for hours worked by their employees at rates that are specified in the CBAs. The Trust Agreement specifically requires such employers to submit remittance reports to the Funds that reflect the number of hours worked by their employees in covered employment and the corresponding contributions. In order to verify the accuracy of these remittance reports, the Funds conduct regular audits of employers, and may conduct an audit “at any time” pursuant to the Trust Agreement. (Cody Decl., ¶¶ 16–17.) The Trust Agreement also states that in the event an employer is delinquent in making its contributions, the employer is then liable for: (1) the delinquent contributions; (2) interest on the delinquent contributions from the first day of the month for which contributions were due to the date when payment is made; (3) liquidated damages equal to the greater of (i) the amount of interest due, or (ii) twenty percent of the delinquent contributions; (4) audit fees; and (5) attorney's fees and costs.

Beginning on July 7, 1995, the Defendant Oakfield Leasing Inc. (“Oakfield”) has been a signatory to a series of CBAs with the Union. From June 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009, and from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012, Oakfield was bound to the terms of a CBA known as the Metropolitan Trucker's Association and Independent Trucker's Contract (the “MTA CBA”). While Oakfield did not sign the MTA CBA, there is no dispute that it adopted the CBA by its conduct and thus is bound by it. In this regard, Oakfield signed and submitted remittance reports to the Plaintiff Funds that stated “MTA” or “Metropolitan Trucker's Ass'n” on them. In addition, Oakfield contributed to the Funds at the rates set forth in the MTA CBA, and increased its contributions in accordance with that agreement. In this regard, the remittance reports stated

[904 F.Supp.2d 255]

that “BY SIGNING THIS REPORT YOU AGREE TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THE CURRENT LOCAL 282 INDUSTRY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING THE WORK PERFORMED BY YOUR EMPLOYEES.” (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶ 18.) Thus, Oakfield is undoubtedly bound as a signatory to the relevant CBAs.

According to the Plaintiffs, they sought to audit Oakfield for the period beginning on October 1, 2008, including access to the books and records of the Defendant Coral Industries Inc. (“Coral”), because Coral was an entity affiliated with Oakfield. However, the Funds claim that Oakfield failed to submit to the requested audits. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶ 19–20.) On the other hand, the Defendants deny that Oakfield ever received an audit request, and assert that no documentation exists to support the Plaintiff's claim that Oakfield failed to submit to an audit.

If an employer refuses to submit to an audit—as the Plaintiffs contend that Oakfield did—the Trustee has the power to estimate the amount of contributions owed based upon formulas contained in the Trust Agreement. This is precisely what the Plaintiffs did in the present case. The Plaintiffs now claim that in performing an estimated audit and applying the relevant formulas, Oakfield owes: (1) $336,751.49 in delinquent contributions; (2) $78,600.14 in interest for the period from October 2008 through October 2011, as well as $166.07 per diem interest, accruing since December 16, 2011; (3) liquidated damages equal to the interest owed; and (4) $350 for audit costs. The Defendants do not deny that they owe the above mentioned amounts, but rather deny liability only on the ground that they have not been supplied with documents supporting the audit and estimations.

Philomena Babino was the owner of Oakfield since its incorporation in 1991. She died on May 13, 2010. Since her death, Michael P. Babino Sr. (“Michael Sr.”), her husband, has taken over her ownership interest. The Plaintiffs assert that Philomena's son, the Defendant Michael N. Babino Jr. (“Michael Jr.”), was previously an employee of Oakfield (Pl.'s Ex. A. at 29–30), but the Defendants deny this fact. (Babino, Jr. Decl., ¶ 3; Def.'s Ex. B at 24.) Notwithstanding this apparent factual dispute, the Defendants admit that Michael Jr. has been employed as a driver by Oakfield. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶ 87.) Regardless, there is no dispute that Michael Jr. established Coral Industries Inc. (“Coral”) in 1995. He currently owns the company and has been its only shareholder. It is undisputed that Coral has never been a signatory to any CBA with any labor organization.

Oakfield's address is, and at all times has been, 752 Oakfield Avenue, North Bellmore, New York 11710. This house is owned by Michael Sr., the father of the Defendant Michael Jr. Coral's certificate of incorporation lists the same address with the New York Secretary of State for purposes of service of process.

Both companies are in the business of providing trucking services to customers. In particular, both companies operate dump trucks to truck away construction debris or excavated materials from its customers' construction sites. (Pl.'s Ex. B at 23–24; Pl.'s Ex. C at 94.) Oakfield and Coral have rented property at 1351 Newbridge Road, Bellmore, N.Y. The companies share customers, such as Asplundh Construction (“Asplundh”) and Network Infrastructure (“Network”). (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶ 71–72.) In fact, the only customers Coral has ever had are Asplundh and Network.

[904 F.Supp.2d 256]

Oakfield and Coral utilize dump trucks, which are designated by a number that is painted on the truck. Oakfield and Coral both used Truck # 11, registered to Coral, to provide services to Asplundh. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶ 77.) Coral invoiced Asplundh for the services that Truck # 11 provided on June 1, 2009, and Oakfield invoiced Asplundh for the services that Truck # 11 provided on June 8, 2009. ( Id.) Similarly, on October 21, 2009, Oakfield used Truck # 10 to provide services to Network at a location in Woodmere, New York, while Coral used the same truck to provide services to the same client in Woodmere, New York on the very next day. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶ 81–82.) The two companies' invoices both utilized the typography of an initial small letter with the balance of the letters in capitals, such as “wOODMERE” or “rOCKAWAYS”. A number of individuals, such as Joseph Mollin, Anthony Bassolino, David Hernandez, and Thomas Pelligrino, have been employed as drivers for both companies. On occasions, drivers employed by Oakfield drove trucks owned by Coral. Further, on occasions when Joseph Mollin drove for Oakfield, that company paid his wages, although he was an employee of Coral. (Pl.Ex. C at 140–41.) The Defendant Michael Jr. also performed driving services for Oakfield while driving a truck registered to Coral.

There are further undisputed instances of employees of one company performing driving services for the other company; employees of one company utilizing the trucks registered to the other company; and employees of one company being paid wages by the other company. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶ 92–100.) It was not unusual for Oakfield to use Coral's trucks, and for Coral to use trucks that were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Mannucci v. Cabrini Med. Ctr. (In re Cabrini Med. Ctr.)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 20, 2012
    ...1996) (quoting Corcoran v. Hall, 149 A.D.2d 165, 545 N.Y.S.2d 278 (1st Dep't 1989)). 74.See Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 249, 269–70, 2012 WL 5467519, at *17 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (collecting cases). See also Leddy v. Standard Drywall, Inc., 875 F.2d 383, 388 (2d Cir.1989) ( “We......
  • Nisselson v. Marjerry Realty Corp. (In re Port Morris Tile & Marble LP)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 6, 2022
    ...are actionable under an ERISA alter ego theory but not actionable under a New York alter ego theory. See Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing, Inc. , 904 F. Supp. 2d 249, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (holding that "piercing the corporate veil is appropriate ... despite the fact that no wrongful conduct has b......
  • Babino v. Gesualdi
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • October 4, 2017
    ...Lawsuit"), was assigned to this Court.On November 9, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment to the Funds. Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing Inc. , 904 F.Supp.2d 249 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (the " 2012 Decision"). The Court found that Coral and Oakfield were a single employer; ordered the Companies to s......
  • Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl), CASE NO. 16–20305
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • September 29, 2017
    ...money, or otherwise deal with it as if it is his own, just because he owns RDC stock. See, e.g., Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 249, 268 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (stating that a shareholder improperly used a corporation "as his 'personal piggy bank', in that he used corporate funds......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT