Finkel v. S.I. Associates Co., Inc.

Full title: FRANK H. FINKEL, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. S.I. ASSOCIATES CO., INC. and…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2007

CV 05-4656 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007)

Opinion

CV 05-4656.

August 20, 2007

COHEN WEISS SIMON LLP, BY: JAMES R. GRISI, ESQ., New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DANDENEAU LOTT, BY: GERALD V. DANDENEAU, ESQ., Melville, New York, Attorneys for Defendant S.I. Associates Co., Inc.

TRIVELLA, FORTS SMITH, LLP, BY: CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH, ESQ., White Plains, New York, Attorneys for Defendant Nassau Ready Mix Corporation.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEONARD WEXLER, Senior District Judge

This is an action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The action was commenced by Plaintiffs in their capacities as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds (the "Trustees" or the "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs seek unpaid benefit plan contributions as sell as interest, liquidated damages ad attorneys fees pursuant to ERISA. Named as defendants are S.I. Associates Co., Inc. ("SI") and Nassau Ready Mix Corp. ("Nassau") (collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiff allege that Defendants are liable for payments to the Funds pursuant to the theories of single employer, joint employer, alter ego and/or double breasted corporate relationship. It is Plaintiff's theory that SI transferred its previously union business to Defendant Nassau, a non-union business, to circumvent benefit contribution obligations. Defendants deny this contention and move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Upon consideration of the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, this Court finds that genuine issues of material fact regarding the Defendants' businesses exist precluding the entry of summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (a party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that "there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Donohue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.

SO ORDERED.