Arnold v. District Council No. 9

389 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 999, 416 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1919, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2184
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 27, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 N.E.2d 830 (Arnold v. District Council No. 9) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. District Council No. 9, 389 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 999, 416 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1919, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2184 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Arnold G. Fraiman at Special Term, and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff declaring that Daniel French is subject to the automatic suspension for nonpayment of dues provisions of the union constitution despite his status as a life member of the union, pursuant to the provisions of the union constitution in effect when this action was commenced. We have been informed that during the pendency of this action seeking, inter alia, to set aside the January, 1977 election of a union business representative, a subsequent election has been held for the next term of that office, and that someone has been elected to that position. Hence, there would appear to be no point in setting aside the 1977 election, as was requested by plaintiff. However, since the dispute is one which is apt to recur, we decline the invitation to dismiss the action as moot, and have instead determined to resolve the merits as indicated above in the context of a declaratory judgment. Since the business representative in this instance was not "an officer” of the union within the contemplation of subdivision (n) of section 3 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (US Code, tit 29, § 402, subd [n]), the State courts are not denied jurisdiction as to either pre-election or postelection challenges (cf. US Code, tit 29, §§ 482, 483).

[1002]*1002Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Dora P.
68 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 999, 416 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1919, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-district-council-no-9-ny-1979.