Vandermark, Terminelle and Mateer v. Wynder and LEEBA

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
MARSHALL VANDERMARK, ROBERT
MATEER, THOMAS TERMINELLE, as members
of a Class of approximately 190 Police Officers
FIRST AMENDED
Similarly Situated,
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 15-CV-0483 (VSB)
-against-
Demand for Trial by Jury
LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES

BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (LEEBA),
KENNETH N. WYNDER, president of LEEBA, and
TERRENCE P. DWYER,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiffs, Marshall Vandermark (Vandermark), Robert Mateer (Mateer) and Thomas
Terminelle (Terminelle), as members of a union of approximately 190 police officers similarly
situated (collectively, Plaintiffs), by and through their attorney, Rudy A. Dermesropian, LLC,
make the following allegations against the Defendants Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent
Association (LEEBA), Kenneth N. Wynder, president of LEEBA (Wynder), and Terrence P.
Dwyer, legal counsel for LEEBA (Dwyer) (collectively, Defendants):
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages to
vindicate Plaintiffs rights as members of LEEBA under federal and state laws.
2. This civil action arises pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 401, et seq. of the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 141, et seq. of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended (LMRA), for breach of fiduciary duty,
wasting union assets, and involves a dispute over LEEBAs failure to file the necessary reports
and annual financial reports with the Secretary of Labor, as well as a dispute over access by
Plaintiffs to financial books, records and accounts of LEEBA, Wynder, president of LEEBA, and
Dwyer, legal counsel for LEEBA, and for breach of fiduciary responsibilities by Wynder and
Dwyer.
3. This action also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to: (1) rescind the current
Constitution and Bylaws (the 2014 Bylaws) as they were revised and filed in violation of the
initial Constitution and Bylaws filed in 2010 (the 2010 Bylaws) and the LMRDA; (2) revoke
the February 13, 2014 Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Defendants; (3)
permanently remove the self-proclaimed and unelected LEEBA president Wynder, who is not
qualified to serve as president, was not elected into office in compliance with the 2010 Bylaws or
LMRDA, and who appointed officers and members of the Board of Directors of LEEBA in
violation of the 2010 Bylaws; and (4) directing Defendants to disgorge any and all
misappropriated funds.
4. This action further seeks an order granting Plaintiffs damages: (5) for fraud and
corruption; (6) for abuses in the administration and practices of LEEBA toward its members; (7)
for disregarding and violating the contractual rights of individual union members as those rights
are delineated in the 2010 Bylaws and Constitution of LEEBA; and (8) for breach of the 2010
Bylaws and Constitution of LEEBA that was amended retroactively without membership
approval.
5. Plaintiffs are also seeking money damages and reimbursement of funds to be placed
back into union coffers where the president and officers of LEEBA failed to provide financial
disclosure of expenditures and siphoned off union dues for purposes other than for the best
interests of the membership while conducting union business contrary to requirements stated in
LMRDA.
6. Plaintiffs are Environmental Police Officers (EPO), union members and elected
officers of LEEBA in good standing and who, at all relevant times, were and still are represented
by LEEBA in collective bargaining with the City of New York.
7. Vandermark is currently a union delegate who participated in grievance filing and
discipline proceedings for the benefit of rank and file members, and who is also a designated
member of the Board of Directors of LEEBA.
8. Union membership is composed of approximately one hundred ninety (190) members
who form a single classification of EPOs employed by the City of New York and include
Plaintiffs.
9. On September 14, 1959, Congress enacted Public Law 86-257 to provide for the
reporting and disclosure of certain financial transactions and administrative practices of labor
organizations and employers to prevent abuses in the administration of unions, and to provide
standards with respect to the election of officers of labor organizations.
10. Public Law 86-257 is referred to and cited as the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S. Code 401, et seq.
11. Public Law 80-101 is referred to and cited as the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947 (LMRA) better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. 141, et seq.
12. Plaintiffs allege deceptive and corrupt union practices, and improper influences of
labor relations and activities in derogation of the union members rights to organize and conduct
union business.
13. Pursuant to Section 201(b) of the LMRDA, every labor organization must file an
annual LM-2 Report with the Secretary of Labor.
14. The annual LM-2 Report must disclose the organization's financial condition and
operations for the preceding year, detailing the union's assets, liabilities, and disbursements. 29
U.S.C. 431(b).
15. Section 201(c) of the LMRDA is intended to ensure that the information that unions
report in their annual LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report to the United States Department
of Labor is verifiable, and that such information, along with the ability to examine books,
records, and accounts, are open to union members upon a showing of just cause.
16. Section 201(b) of the LMRDA requires that [e]very labor organization shall file
annually with the Secretary [of Labor] a financial report signed by its president and treasurer or
corresponding principal officers containing the following information in such detail as may be
necessary to accurately disclose its financial condition and operations for its preceding fiscal
year:
1. assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the fiscal year;
2. receipts of any kind and the sources thereof;
3. salary, allowances, and other direct or indirect disbursements (including
reimbursed expenses) to each officer and also to each employee who, during such
fiscal year, received more than $10,000 in the aggregate from such labor
organization and any other labor organization affiliated with it or with which it is
affiliated, or which is affiliated with the same national or international labor
organization;
4. direct and indirect loans made to any officer, employee, or member, which
aggregated more than $250 during the fiscal year, together with a statement of the
purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment;
5. direct and indirect loans to any business enterprise, together with a statement of
the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment; and
6. other disbursements made by it, including the purposes thereof, all in such
categories as the Secretary may prescribe. 29 U.S.C. 431(b).
17. Specifically, Section 201(c) of the LMRDA provides in pertinent part that [e]very
labor organization required to submit a report . . . shall make available the information required
to be contained in such report to all of its members, and every such labor organization and its
officers shall be under a duty enforceable at the suit of any member of such organization in any
State court of competent jurisdiction or in the district court of the United States for the district in
which such labor organization maintains its principal office, to permit such member for just
cause to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report. The court in
such action may, in its discretion, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or
plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorneys fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
29 U.S.C. 431(c).
18. By this suit, Plaintiffs, who are members and officers of LEEBA, seek, in part, to
enforce the duty imposed by law upon Defendants to permit Plaintiffs, who have just cause, to
examine and copy relevant books, records, and accounts necessary to verify the unions receipts
and expenditures from 2005 to the present, and seek all remedies provided by law, including, but
not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
19. Plaintiffs are claiming willful and intentional violations by Defendants of LEEBAs
2010 Bylaws and Constitution, as well as the LMRDA and equivalent State laws.
20. Plaintiffs damages are also based on the claim that Defendants orchestrated,
structured, and implemented a corrupt business scheme to profit from the dues collected from
Plaintiffs and other union members similarly situated to Plaintiffs, through dues check-off
extracted from their paychecks and for violations of the trust by the union president and LEEBA
Board of Directors.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court over Plaintiffs federal law claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1337(a), 2201(a), the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 401, et seq. and the
LMRA, 29 U.S.C. 141, et seq.
22. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
23. Plaintiffs state law claims are so closely related to Plaintiffs federal law claims that
they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.
24. At least one of the Defendants is a citizen of a state different from that of the
Plaintiffs.
25. Plaintiffs claims involve matters of national or interstate interest.
26. Upon information and belief, there are approximately one hundred and ninety (190)
EPOs who are members of LEEBA, in the aggregate.
27. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because, among other
things: (a) Defendant LEEBA is a labor organization certified by the City of New York; and (b)
Defendants conduct their union duties and responsibilities within the state of New York.
28. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2201 and 2202.
29. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 29 U.S.C. 185, 412, and 28 U.S.C.
1391.
PARTIES
30. Plaintiff Marshall Vandermark is a member and delegate of LEEBA within the
meaning of the LMRDA Sections 3(o) and (q) (29 U.S.C. 402(o), (q)) and is a domiciliary of
Sidney, NY.
31. Plaintiff Robert Mateer is a member of LEEBA within the meaning of the LMRDA
Sections 3(o) (29 U.S.C. 402(o)) and is a domiciliary of Margaretville, NY.
32. Plaintiff Thomas Terminelle is a member of LEEBA within the meaning of the
LMRDA Sections 3(o) (29 U.S.C. 402(o)) and is a domiciliary of Richmond Hill, NY.
33. Upon information and belief, all members of LEEBA reside within the State of New
York.
34. Defendant LEEBA is a labor organization formed and existing for the purpose of
collective bargaining and representing the interests of its members.
35. Defendant LEEBA is a labor organization within the meaning of the LMRDA
Sections 3(i) (29 U.S.C. 402(i)).
36. LEEBA is a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 301 of the LMRA.
37. LEEBA and all of its members and officers are bound and governed by the
Constitution of LEEBA.
38. The Constitution is a contract within the meaning of Section 301 of the LMRA and
under the laws of the State of New York.
39. Upon information and belief, LEEBA represents approximately one hundred ninety
(190) EPOs and was certified by the City of New York on October 20, 2005 to represent EPOs in
collective bargaining.
40. Upon information and belief, LEEBA maintains a principal place of business at 277
Main Street, Catskills, NY 12414 and regularly conducts business in New York City and the
State of New York.
41. Defendant Kenneth N. Wynder is the president and an agent of LEEBA and resides at
519 Thomas St., Stroudsburg, PA 18360.
42. At all relevant times hereto, defendant Wynder acted under the color of LEEBA
authority. Wynder is sued in his individual and official capacity as president of LEEBA.
43. Defendant Terrence P. Dwyer is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New
York, is legal counsel to LEEBA and Wynder, and maintains an office located at 277 Main
Street, Catskills, NY 12414.
44. Upon information and belief, Dwyer owns and controls the real estate located at 277
Main Street, Catskills, NY 12414 and either rents or leases property to LEEBA.
45. On October 20, 2005, LEEBA became the designated collective bargaining agent for
EPOs and has served and filed petitions before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to
represent Seagate Police Officers, Sands Casino Security Guards, Yonkers Raceway Security
Guards, Brinks Guards, and San Manuel Indian Reservation Security Guards, which are all
private sector employee groups.
46. LEEBA was also granted the right to represent Seagate Police Officers, Sands Casino
Security Guards, and Brinks Guards.
47. Upon information and belief, LEEBA filed a financial disclosure for at least one of
these groups for the years 2011 and 2012 and filed a financial disclosure for EPOs for the year
2013 only as a result of being directed to do so by the U.S. Labor Department in the year 2014.
48. Upon information and belief, LEEBA failed to file or provide a financial disclosure
for EPO representation for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014,
as required by LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431.
FACTS
Background
49. The Water Supply Act of 1906 created the Bureau of Water Supply Police (BWSP)
and Aqueduct Police (AP), which evolved into the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection Police (DEP) through legislative action.
50. The BWSP and AP were originally assigned to precincts in Peekskill, Garrison,
Browns Station, and High Falls in the State of New York.
51. The BWSP and AP Officers were the first police agencies in upstate New York with a
multiple county police jurisdiction.
52. During in or about 1909, BWSP and AP were granted the right to transfer into New
York City Police Department (NYPD) and to become NYPD Officers.
53. From 1908 to the present, the New York City Administrative Code (the Code)
13-634 recognizes the right of members of the BWSP and AP to transfer into the NYPD.
54. The Code 13-634 states, in pertinent part, [t]ransfer of members of the police force
of the board of water supply to the police department of the City of New York. The members of
the police force of the board of water supply of the [City of New York] upon the termination of
their service on such force by reason of the completion of the work for which they were
appointed by such board shall be severally eligible for transfer to the position of patrolman in the
office department of the city upon the written request in each case of the board, accompanied by
the consent, also in writing, of the person to be transferred, and the further consent of the police
commissioner.
55. In or about 1983, BWSP became the DEP and EPO, and the New York State
Legislature revised the States Criminal Procedure Law to include DEP and EPO members.
56. As such, DEP and EPO members were designated as Police Officers under the New
York State Criminal Procedure Law, NY CPL 1.20(34)(o).
57. In or about 1999, DEP or EPO jurisdiction was extended to include the five boroughs
of New York City.
58. EPOs have been and continue to be commanded to determine probable cause for
arrests on a daily basis and to regularly enforce New York State Penal Law inside the City of
New York and throughout the State of New York.
59. EPOs jurisdiction extends throughout the State of New York and affects interstate
commerce where the waterways they guard border on other states and are used to transport goods
in interstate commerce.
60. Since in or about 1999, EPOs have worked closely with NYPD officers performing
law enforcement functions inside New York City where they make arrests and determine
probable cause for arrests.
10
61. On October 20, 2005, the Certification Board of the NYC Office of Collective
Bargaining (OCB) certified LEEBA as the collective bargaining agent for EPOs.
Defendant Wynder is Ineligible to be President of LEEBA
62. Upon information and belief, Wynder appointed himself as president of LEEBA in
2005 and remains in that position until today without being qualified to serve as president and
without a membership vote as required by the 2010 Bylaws.
63. Section 401(b) of the LMRDA states, [e]very local labor organization shall elect its
officers not less than once every three years by secret ballot among the members in good
standing. 29 U.S. Code 481(b).
64. Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA also states, [e]very member of a labor organization
shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in
elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to
participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to
reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws. 29 U.S.C.
411(a)(1).
65. The LMRA also provides union members the right to designate or elect union
representatives, including the president, by a majority vote. 29 U.S.C. 157, 159(a).
66. Consistent with the LMRDA and the LMRA, Article VI of the 2010 Bylaws states,
[a]ll officers of the Association shall be elected by a vote of the membership of the Association.
If an officer shall be unopposed in an election, his name shall be sent out to the entire
membership for a vote of confidence, and [t]he terms of office for all positions on the
Executive Board and the Board of Directors shall be three (3) years.
11
67. Here, Wynder was never elected president of LEEBA by members in good standing
and has refused to hold proper elections.
68. Defendants also failed and/or refused to send out to the entire membership Wynders
name for a vote of confidence, as further required by the 2010 Bylaws.
69. Wynder simply decided to elect and re-elect himself as president of LEEBA since
2005 to the present with complete disregard to the 2010 Bylaws, which were retroactively
applied, and all governing laws.
70. Furthermore, Article IV of the 2010 Bylaws outlined the following requirements for
any member prior to filling the position of President or First Vice-President: [a]ny member in
good standing who has been a member of his/her employment group for at least one (1) year
prior to election shall be eligible to hold office. The Executive Offices of President and First
Vice-President shall be filled by any member who has served as an elected delegate for period of
at least two (2) years prior to election.
71. Wynder was never an elected delegate or a member of an employment group, as
required by the 2010 Bylaws.
72. Accordingly, Wynder was never eligible and is still ineligible to hold the office of
president of LEEBA and has thus been acting and continues to unlawfully act as president.
73. Because Wynder is ineligible to fill the position of president of LEEBA, Plaintiffs
request declaratory and injunctive relief to immediately remove Wynder from the office of
president and to permanently bar him from holding office with LEEBA.
74. Furthermore, since Wynder was never eligible to be president of LEEBA, all of the
actions he took in his official capacity, including but not limited to agreements signed in his
official capacity, should never been enforced and should therefore be rescinded.
12
Defendants Unlawful Actions

75. On February 13, 2014, Wynder, acting as president of LEEBA, entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of New York, retroactively implementing
and incorporating certain economic provisions for a thirty (30) month period commencing on
October 20, 2005 through April 19, 2008.
76. The economic provisions affected the pay, working conditions, and benefits of the
members of LEEBA.
77. The MOA stated in part, [t]he terms of the predecessor separate unit agreement shall
be continued except as modified pursuant to this 2005-2008 LEEBA MOA.
78. As union members in good standing, Plaintiffs, as well as other union members, were
required to be provided a copy of the MOA or given access to a copy of the MOA, along with a
full explanation of its content, before it could be signed by Wynder.
79. However, Defendants failed and/or refused to provide a copy of the MOA and failed
and/or refused to explain the content of the MOA to the full membership of LEEBA prior to
Wynders signing it.
80. Article X of LEEBAs 2010 Bylaws, which were filed with the U.S. Department of
Labor five (5) years after LEEBA became the designated collective bargaining agent for EPOs,
provided, [a]ny collective bargaining contracts which are negotiated on behalf of the members
of the Association shall be ratified by the members covered by such contracts. The Association
will not enter into any contract which has not been approved by the members of the Association
at a contract vote.
81. At no time prior to February 2014, when Wynder executed the MOA, did Defendants
allow the members to vote on such contract.
13
82. Wynder signed the MOA without pursuing membership ratification, in direct
violation of rights portrayed in the 2010 Bylaws.
83. Because Wynder is ineligible to hold the office of president, as defined in the 2010
Bylaws, his signature on any document(s) signed in this official capacity should be held null and
void.
84. Furthermore, LMRDA provides for financial disclosure of LEEBA income and
expenses to be published by LEEBA and made available to the full membership at least once
each year.
85. Article XII of the 2010 Bylaws in turn provides that [n]o later than the November
meeting of the Executive Board, the Financial Secretary will present a budget for the approval of
the full Board of Directors for the fiscal year which will be from the following January 1st
through December 31st.
The budget shall be approved by the Finance Committee before
presentation to the Board of Directors. The budget shall contain at least the following terms (a)
projected income from all sources, (b) proposed costs in all areas and programs, (c) a listing of
all assets of the Association and (d) a listing of all liabilities of the Association.
86. Upon information and belief, Defendants never presented a budget for the approval of
the full Board of Directors.
87. Since 2005 to the present, Wynder failed and/or refused to disclose financial reports
and information, in accordance with the requirements under the LMRDA and the Bylaws.
88. Furthermore, Article VI of the 2010 Bylaws states that the Financial Secretary of
LEEBA shall keep accurate record of receipts and disbursements and shall, once every two (2)
months, submit to the membership an operating statement of the financial transactions of the
Association for the previous months.
14
89. Defendants failed and/or refused to maintain an accurate record of receipts and
disbursements and did not submit to the membership an operating statement of the financial
transactions of the Association.
90. As a direct consequence of the failure to provide financial disclosure to the
membership, damages have occurred in the form of expenditures being made from union dues
without justification and in direct violation of the best interests of the membership.
91. The 2010 Bylaws provide, Full Member dues shall be paid bi-weekly at the flat rate
of $30.00 for a monthly rate of $60.00 and a yearly rate of $720.00. Full members also pay an
initiation fee of $25.00. Associate Member dues shall be paid monthly at the rate of $10.00 for a
yearly rate of $120.00. Associate Members shall also pay an initiation fee of $25.00.
92. Full Member dues were increased to $40.00 every two weeks and Associate Member
dues were increased to a monthly rate of $50.00 for a yearly rate of $600.00, without proper
amendment to the 2010 Bylaws.
93. The use of union dues, extracted from EPO paychecks in the form of dues check-off,
for expenditures not in the best interests of all members collectively and individually have been
made without full and complete disclosure to the members, in violation of Defendants fiduciary
duties.
94. In addition, Article VI of the 2010 Bylaws provides in part that LEEBAs president
shall countersign all checks drawn against the general funds of the Association.
95. Upon information and belief, this provision of the Bylaws was intended to safeguard
union funds by requiring a countersignature of all checks drawn against the unions general
funds.
15
96. However, upon further information and belief, Defendants blatantly disregarded and
violated the requirement to countersign checks by signing and cashing checks against general
funds of the Association at will, without the safeguard of countersignatures.
97. Upon information and belief, the LEEBA EPO budget has never been prepared or
presented to the full Board of Directors, and as a consequence, the Board never approved money
expended by Wynder.
98. Upon information and belief, LEEBAs General Fund has been constantly depleted
by Defendants without an accounting or financial disclosure, in violation of the 2010 Bylaws and
LMRDA, causing severe financial damages to the members.
99. LEEBA leases a commercial space located at 277 Main Street, Catskills, NY 12414
(the Catskills Office).
100.
LEEBA makes rental payment of over $12,000 dollars per year to Terramark
Properties, LLC.
101.
Upon information and belief, Terramark Properties, LLC, which is also located at
the Catskills Office, is owned and operated by defendant Dwyer.

102.
LEEBA also makes alleged expenditure payments for the Catskills Office of over
$55,000 per year.

103.
Upon information and belief, Defendants do not personally occupy the Catskills
Office or conduct union business from there.

104.
Plaintiff Mateer personally visited the Catskills office on different occasions and
observed the office unoccupied on each visit.
16
105.
Plaintiff Mateer was informed by a woman residing at the building located at 277
Main Street, Catskills, NY 12414 that the Catskills Office is unoccupied by LEEBA personnel,
and that someone comes by once per month to collect the accumulated mail.
106.
Upon information and belief, the alleged rent and expenditure payments totaling
over $67,000 per year are being made from LEEBA to Dwyer.
107.
Section 501 of the LMRDA states, (a) [t]he officers, agents, shop stewards, and
other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such

organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking
into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and
property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and
expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the
governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an
adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from
holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such
organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever
capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the
organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor
organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any
such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against
public policy. 29 U.S.C. 501(a).
108.
Section 502 further states, (c) [a]ny person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully
and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys,
funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by
17
which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
for not more than five years, or both. 29 U.S.C. 501(c).
109.
Defendants misuse of union funds, failure to properly budget the accounts of
LEEBA, combined with their failure to provide financial disclosures to the members, amount to
a breach of fiduciary duty.
110.
Prior to August 20, 2014, Plaintiffs had never been given or even seen a copy of
the LEEBA Bylaws, although numerous requests were made to Wynder asking him to produce
same.
111.
Without notice to the members, Defendants filed an amended Constitution and
Bylaws with the U.S. Department of Labor and falsely stated on the 2014 Bylaws, Originally
adopted 10/05/2005 amended January 21, 2011, without providing prior notice to the
membership and without membership approval and vote as required by the 2005 Bylaws.
112.
other things:
The submission of the amended 2014 Bylaws was purported to change, among
(a) the requirements for amending the Bylaws, (b) the requirements for
membership ratification of agreements, and (c) the requirements to hold office in the union.
113.
Upon information and belief, the 2014 Bylaws were intentionally back-dated with
a false claim that they were adopted in the year 2005 to create the illusion that LEEBA
management abided by the newly created and filed Bylaws.
114.
Upon information and belief, Defendants backdated the 2014 Bylaws because
Wynder was placed on notice of certain violations of the 2010 Bylaws.

115.
Defendants violated Article XVI of the 2010 Bylaws by failing and/or refusing to
notify the members and without holding a membership vote, causing the 2014 Bylaws to be
unenforceable and non-binding.
18
Notice to Take Action

116.
On or about January 2, 2015, Vandermark notified Defendants, in writing, of
improper practices of L.E.E.B.A., including, in part, the unlawful and improper modification
and amendment of the 2010 Bylaws without membership approval.
117.
Vandermark reminded Defendants that the 2010 Bylaws required a membership
vote to amend them, while complaining that the new Bylaws claim to be amended on January
21, 2011 and filed in 2014 without a required membership approval.
118.
Vandermark, who is a LEEBA member and delegate, further stated that he is not
aware of any membership vote taken to amend the Bylaws of LEEBA and [he] therefore require
the Bylaws filed in 2005 to remain in effect until the membership approves a change.
119.
Vandermark further noted that [t]he 2005 Bylaws provide[d] [him] with the right
to see, review and be informed with regard to the signing of any MOA that affects the terms and
conditions of [his] employment. [He noted that] L.E.E.B.A. deleted membership ratification of
agreements in the amended Bylaws filed with the U.S. Labor Department and eliminated
membership approval of changes to the Bylaws which are drastic changes.
120.
The January 2, 2015 letter also noted that LEEBA president,
Wynder, was
never elected by a membership vote.

121.
As a L.E.E.B.A. member, [Vandermark] was never provided notice of MOA
ratification or allowed to vote for a change to the Bylaws and Constitution. This deprivation is a
violation of the L.E.E.B.A Bylaws filed in 2005 with the U.S. Department of Labor.
122.
Vandermarks letter pointed out several other violations by the Defendants,
including, but not limited to, Defendants failure and/or refusal to provide him with the Bylaws,
improper use of membership dues, actions taken by LEEBA and its president without notifying
19
union members in violation of the Bylaws, failure and/or refusal of LEEBA to keep accurate
records with receipts and disbursements, and LEEBAs failure and/or refusal to hold presidential
elections as required by the Bylaws.
123.
Finally, Vandermark requested an immediate response to this letter and
representation that the membership will be given the opportunity to approve all amendments to
the Bylaws and Constitution.
124.
Vandermark further demanded that L.E.E.B.A. pursue the judgment interest
owed on retro-active earnings and that it conduct a proper election for president in accords with
2005 Bylaws and Constitution filed with the U.S. Labor Department where those Bylaws are a
contract between the members and the union by law until the membership approves change.
125.
Mateer and Terminelle also sent identical letters to Wynder.
126.
Defendants failed and/or refused to respond or take any corrective action after
receiving any of the three letters sent by the Plaintiffs.

Terrence P. Dwyer
127.
Upon information and belief, Dwyer was aware that Wynder was ineligible to
hold office and in fact unlawfully held office with LEEBA.

128.
Upon information and belief, Dwyer aided and abetted Wynder in unlawfully
holding the position of and acting as president of LEEBA.

129.
Upon information and belief, Dwyer has conducted business in New York State
utilizing an entity known as Terramark Properties, LLC which owns real property located at 277
Main Street, Catskills, NY 12414
130.
In the financial disclosure filed by LEEBA for the year 2013, LEEBA paid rent
for the Catskills Office which is owned by Terramark Properties, LLC.
20
131.
While Dwyer collected rent from LEEBA for the Catskills Office in the amount
of $12,000.00 per year, LEEBA also incurred association overhead in the amount of $55,109.00
involved with the alleged use of this facility. These amounts are excessive and unrealistic
expenses for comparable space and services in the same geographic area.
132.
At all relevant times herein, Dwyer was retained as an attorney for LEEBA.
133.
Upon information and belief, Dwyer influenced the outlay of money from
LEEBA funds and caused an overpayment for the use of the facility to the detriment of the union
its members.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Members Equal Rights and Freedom of Speech and Assembly
(LMRDA: 29 U.S.C. 411)
(As Against All Defendants)
134.
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate each and every allegation contained in
the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth in this paragraph of the
Complaint.
135.
The acts of the Defendants set forth above resulted in the interference with the
membership rights of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated EPOs, and therefore, violate Section
101(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(a).
136.
The acts of the Defendants prevent the Plaintiffs from exercising their statutory
rights to nominate candidates, vote in elections, attend membership meetings, and participate in
deliberations.
137.
By disclaiming the Plaintiffs, the Defendants interfered with these rights and have,
therefore, violated Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1).

138.
Plaintiffs are still members of LEEBA and they therefore have the ability to
participate in the activities listed in Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1).
21
139.
The acts of the Defendants deprive the Plaintiffs of their right of free speech and
assembly within the union and have, therefore, violated Section 101(a)(2) of the LMRDA, 29
U.S.C. 411(a)(2).
140.
As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs
have suffered an infringement of important federal statutory rights and have incurred attorneys
fees and costs to vindicate their rights under the LMRDA.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Members Equal Rights and Freedom of Speech and Assembly
(LMRA: 29 U.S.C. 185)
141.
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth in this paragraph of the Complaint.
142.
The acts of the Defendants set forth above resulted in the interference with the
membership rights of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated EPOs, including but not limited to
their right to nominate candidates, vote in elections, attend membership meetings, participate in
deliberations, right to free speech and assembly, and therefore, violate the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.
157, 159(a).
143.
By disclaiming the Plaintiffs, the Defendants interfered with these rights and have,
therefore, violated LMRA, 29 U.S.C. 157, 159(A) and (185(b).

144.
have suffered an infringement of important federal statutory rights and have incurred attorneys
fees and costs to vindicate their rights under the LMRA.
22
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Judgment: Injunctive Relief
(LMRDA: 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.)
145.
146.
Wynder appointed himself as president of LEEBA in 2005 and has remained in that
position until the present time without having the proper qualifications and without a
membership vote as required by the 2010 Bylaws.
147.
Thus, the conditions precedent qualifying and allowing Wynder to fill in the position
of president were never and still are not satisfied, and therefore none of the agreements he
executed, including but limited to the 2014 Bylaws and MOA, are enforceable agreements.
148.
The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
149.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that the amendments to the 2010
Bylaws, the MOA, the modifications to the pay, working conditions and benefits of the members
of LEEBA must be voided and/or set aside, and an injunction restoring the status quo to the 2010
Bylaws and awarding backpay and benefits.
150.
As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs
have suffered an infringement of important federal statutory rights and have incurred attorney's
23
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Judgment: Declaratory Judgment
(LMRDA: 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.)
151.
152.
Wynder appointed himself as president of LEEBA in 2005 and has remained in that
position until the present time without having the proper qualifications and without a
membership vote, as required by the 2010 Bylaws.
153.
Thus, the conditions precedent qualifying and allowing Wynder to fill in the position
of president were never and still are not satisfied.

154.
The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
155.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that defendant Wynder be
immediately removed as president of LEEBA, be permanently barred from running for office at
LEEBA, and declaring that elections pursuant to the 2010 Bylaws take place to replace Wynder
with a qualified union member.
156.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(LMRDA: 29 U.S.C. 431)
157.
24
158.
The LMRDA provides for financial disclosure of LEEBA income and expenses to be
published by LEEBA and made available to the membership at least once each year.
159.
Article XII of LEEBAs 2010 Bylaws provides, [n]o later than the November
160.
Defendants never presented a budget for approval or approved a budget, as required
by the 2010 Bylaws.

161.
Furthermore, Defendants failed and/or refused to file or provide financial disclosure
for the years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014, as required by
LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431.
162.
Article VI of the 2010 Bylaws states, in pertinent part, that the Financial Secretary
must keep an accurate record of receipts and disbursements and shall, once every two (2)
163.
Defendants never provided an accurate record of receipts and disbursements or an
operating statement to the membership while failing to provide financial statements for the
following years: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2014.
164.
As such, Plaintiffs request a Court order requiring the enforcement of Art. XII.
25
165.
As a direct consequence of the failure to provide financial disclosure to the
166.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants file and provide
financial disclosures for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014, as
required by LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431, and produce and keep accurate record of receipts and
disbursements.
167.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(N.Y. Lab. Law 726)
168.
169.
N.Y. Lab. Law 726 states, [e]very labor organization and employer organization
shall make available to each of its members a copy of its annual financial report, or such portions
thereof as the industrial commissioner shall find relevant and appropriate, in such manner as the
industrial commissioner shall prescribe. The president or chief executive officer and the treasurer
or chief financial officer of the organization personally shall be responsible for the preparation of
such report, and both shall verify such report. The officers responsible for the preparation of
reports shall be responsible for providing copies of reports under this section.
26
170.
N.Y. Lab. Law 727 provides, in pertinent part, [e]very labor organization,
employer organization, employer and labor relations consultant shall maintain detailed and
accurate books and records of account in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles and in accordance with standards prescribed by the industrial commissioner.
171.
N.Y. Lab. Law 728 provides, in pertinent part, (1) [a]ny officer, agent, or
employee of any labor organization or employer organization, or any employer or labor relations
consultant who willfully fails or refuses to comply with any provision of sections seven hundred
twenty-six or seven hundred twenty-seven of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars, or by both, and (2) [a]ny officer, agent, or employee of a labor organization
or employer organization, or any employer or labor relations consultant who knowingly causes
any person to fail or refuse to comply with any provision of sections seven hundred twenty-six or
seven hundred twenty-seven of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or
by both.
172.
Defendants failed and/or refused to file or provide financial reports for the years,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014, as required by New York State Labor
Law.
173.
Defendants failed and/or refused to maintain detailed and accurate books and records
of account in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, as required by New

York State Labor Law.
174.
Article XII of LEEBAs 2010 Bylaws provides, [n]o later than the November
27
175.
Defendants never presented a budget for approval or approved a budget, as required
by the 2010 Bylaws.

176.
Article VI of the 2010 Bylaws states, in pertinent part, that the Financial Secretary
must keep an accurate record of receipts and disbursements and shall, once every two (2)
177.
Defendants never provided an accurate record of receipts and disbursements or an
operating statement to the membership while failing to provide financial statements for the
following years: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2014.
178.
As such, Plaintiffs request a Court order requiring the enforcement of Art. XII.
179.
As a direct consequence of the failure to provide financial disclosure to the
180.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants file and provide
financial disclosures for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014, as
required by New York State Labor Law, and produce and keep accurate books and records.
28
181.
have suffered an infringement of important State statutory rights and have incurred attorney's
fees and costs to vindicate their rights under the N.Y. Lab. Law.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fiduciary Duties
(LMRDA: 29 U.S.C. 501)
182.
183.
Defendants occupy positions of trust in relation to LEEBA, and to its members as a
group.
184.
Defendants failure to properly budget the accounts of LEEBA combined with their
failure to provide financial disclosures to the membership, and their misappropriation of funds,
amount to a breach of fiduciary duty to its members.
185.
By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have violated the provisions of the LMRDA
and the 2010 Bylaws by breaching their fiduciary duties and by engaging in prohibited
transactions.
186.
Plaintiffs herein are entitled to an order that the Defendants properly budget the
accounts of LEEBA, to provide the members with LEEBAs financial disclosures from 2005 to
the present and to disgorge any and all misappropriated funds.
187.
The Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys fees.
29
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(N.Y. Lab. Law 720, et seq.)
188.
189.
Defendants occupy positions of trust in relation to LEEBA and to its members as a
group.
190.
New York State Labor Law 722 states, [n]o officer or agent of a labor organization
shall, directly or indirectly (1) Have or acquire any pecuniary or personal interest which would
conflict with his fiduciary obligation to such organization; (2) Engage in any business or
financial transaction which conflicts with his fiduciary obligation; or (3) Act in any way which
subordinates the interests of such labor organization to his own pecuniary or personal interests.
N.Y. Lab. Law 722.
191.
Furthermore, New York State Labor Law 725(1) permits any member of a labor
organization shall have the right to bring an action for legal or equitable relief against an officer
or agent for violating any of his/her fiduciary obligations, action or proceeding if (a) after
request by any member that such action or proceeding be brought, such organization shall fail to
do so, or (b) such request would be futile, or (c) such organization has failed to prosecute
diligently any such action or proceeding which it has brought. N.Y. Lab. Law 725(1).
192.
By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have violated the provisions of the N.Y. Lab.
Law 722 and the 2010 Bylaws by breaching their fiduciary duties and by engaging in
prohibited transactions and misappropriation of funds.
30
193.
the present and to disgorge misappropriated funds.
194.
AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(LMRA: 29 U.S.C. 185)
195.
196.
Defendants occupy positions of trust in relation to LEEBA and to its members as a
group.
197.
By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by
engaging in prohibited transactions and misappropriation of funds in violation of the 2010

Bylaws and the LMRA.
198.
the present and to disgorge misappropriated funds.
199.
31
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Attorneys Fees
200.
201.
Section 102 of the LMRDA states, [a]ny person whose rights secured by the
provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action
in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be
appropriate. Any such action against a labor organization shall be brought in the district court of
the United States for the district where the alleged violation occurred, or where the principal
office of such labor organization is located.
202.
Section 201(c) of the LMRDA states, [e]very labor organization required to submit a
report under this title shall make available the information required to be contained in such report
to all of its members, and every such labor organization and its officers shall be under a duty
enforceable at the suit of any member of such organization in any State court of competent
jurisdiction or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such labor
organization maintains its principal office, to permit such member for just cause to examine any
books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report. The court in such action may, in its
discretion, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable
attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
203.
32
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court grant them the following relief:
A. For an Order removing defendant Kenneth N. Wynder as president of LEEBA;
B. For a declaratory judgment declaring that defendant Kenneth N. Wynder is ineligible
to run for the office of president or any other LEEBA office;
C. For a declaratory judgment declaring that the 2014 Bylaws, the MOA, and any other
agreements entered into by defendant Kenneth N. Wynder are null and void;
D. For an accounting by Defendants of monies expended by LEEBA in the employment
of defendant Terrence P. Dwyer;
E. For an Order directing Defendants to produce all of LEEBAs financial disclosures
and books and records from 2005 to the present;
F. For an Order granting Plaintiffs access to all of Defendants books and records since
2005 to the present.
G. For all monetary damages recoverable as a matter of law against Defendants pursuant
to provisions in 29 U.S.C. 401, et seq.;
H. For all monetary damages recoverable as a matter of law against Defendants pursuant
to provisions in the N.Y. Lab. Law 720, et seq.;
I. For all monetary damages recoverable as a matter of law against Defendants pursuant
to provisions in 29 U.S.C. 141, et seq.
J. For injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 401, et seq.;
K. For recovery of all monetary damages as a matter of law against Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties;
L. For equitable relief, including, but not limited to, the requested corrective action,
against all Defendants;
33
M. For such compensatory, prospective, exemplary and punitive damages as this Court
deems appropriate, just and proper;
N. Costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred herein for vindicating the rights of all
members of LEEBA in this matter; and
O. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, fair and equitable.
Dated: New York, New York
February 24, 2015
Yours, etc.
RUDY A. DERMESROPIAN, LLC.
By:
___s/ Rudy A. Dermesropian__________

Rudy A. Dermesropian (RD 1882)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, New York 10006
646-586-9030
34

Vandermark, Terminelle and Mateer v. Wynder and LEEBA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vandermark, Terminelle and Mateer v. Wynder and LEEBA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 15-CV-0483 (VSB)

Demand for Trial by Jury

LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 8 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 9 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 10 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 11 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 12 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 13 of 34

Defendants Unlawful Actions

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 14 of 34

The budget shall be approved by the Finance Committee before

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 15 of 34

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 16 of 34

the Catskills Office, is owned and operated by defendant Dwyer.

$55,000 per year.

Office or conduct union business from there.

observed the office unoccupied on each visit.

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 17 of 34

other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 18 of 34

Defendants misuse of union funds, failure to properly budget the accounts of

Without notice to the members, Defendants filed an amended Constitution and

Wynder was placed on notice of certain violations of the 2010 Bylaws.

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 19 of 34

Notice to Take Action

On or about January 2, 2015, Vandermark notified Defendants, in writing, of

Vandermark reminded Defendants that the 2010 Bylaws required a membership

The January 2, 2015 letter also noted that LEEBA president,

never elected by a membership vote.

As a L.E.E.B.A. member, [Vandermark] was never provided notice of MOA

Vandermarks letter pointed out several other violations by the Defendants,

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 20 of 34

Finally, Vandermark requested an immediate response to this letter and

Vandermark further demanded that L.E.E.B.A. pursue the judgment interest

Mateer and Terminelle also sent identical letters to Wynder.

receiving any of the three letters sent by the Plaintiffs.

hold office and in fact unlawfully held office with LEEBA.

holding the position of and acting as president of LEEBA.

for the Catskills Office which is owned by Terramark Properties, LLC.

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 21 of 34

therefore, violated Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1).

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 22 of 34

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

therefore, violated LMRA, 29 U.S.C. 157, 159(A) and (185(b).

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 23 of 34

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

Case 1:15-cv-00483-VSB Document 6 Filed 02/24/15 Page 24 of 34

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

of president were never and still are not satisfied.

The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that defendant Wynder be

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

_s/ Rudy A. Dermesropian________