Bieber v. Bininbaum

New York Supreme Court

Bieber v. Bininbaum

168 Misc. 943, 6 N.Y.S.2d 63, 2 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 869, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1791

DecidedJune 29, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 168 Misc. 943 (Bieber v. Bininbaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bieber v. Bininbaum, 168 Misc. 943, 6 N.Y.S.2d 63, 2 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 869, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1791 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Leary, J.

The plaintiff conducts a small shoe store and seeks an injunction pendente lite to restrain the defendants from picketing his place of business and from attempting to coerce him into a contract with the defendants. He formerly employed one salesman, who resigned, and his successor was employed at a lesser salary. Early in the year the defendant union proposed an agreement with the plaintiff requiring an increase of salary and a reduction of hours for the salesman. The agreement was never executed, but the salesman was discharged by the plaintiff claiming that he could no longer afford to pay an employee a salary. The business is now conducted solely by the plaintiff and his wife. Under the circumstances a labor dispute is not involved, and section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act has no application in this case. (Thompson v. Boekhout, 273 N. Y. 390.) Picketing without a strike is no more unlawful than a strike without picketing. Picketing connotes no evil. It may not be accompanied, however, by violence, trespass, threats or intimidation, express or implied. There may be no false statements, either oral or written. (Exchange Bakery & Restaurant, Inc., v. Rifkin, 245 N. Y. 260.) It is conceded that the picketing is peaceful.

Motion to restrain the picketing is denied, but the defendants will be enjoined from using either written or oral misstatements of fact as indicated herein. Settle order.

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

Leary, J.

The plaintiff conducts a small shoe store and seeks an injunction pendente lite to restrain the defendants from picketing his place of business and from attempting to coerce him into a contract with the defendants. He formerly employed one salesman, who resigned, and his successor was employed at a lesser salary. Early in the year the defendant union proposed an agreement with the plaintiff requiring an increase of salary and a reduction of hours for the salesman. The agreement was never executed, but the salesman was discharged by the plaintiff claiming that he could no longer afford to pay an employee a salary. The business is now conducted solely by the plaintiff and his wife. Under the circumstances a labor dispute is not involved, and section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act has no application in this case. (Thompson v. Boekhout, 273 N. Y. 390.) Picketing without a strike is no more unlawful than a strike without picketing. Picketing connotes no evil. It may not be accompanied, however, by violence, trespass, threats or intimidation, express or implied. There may be no false statements, either oral or written. (Exchange Bakery & Restaurant, Inc., v. Rifkin, 245 N. Y. 260.) It is conceded that the picketing is peaceful.

Motion to restrain the picketing is denied, but the defendants will be enjoined from using either written or oral misstatements of fact as indicated herein. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Misc. 943, 6 N.Y.S.2d 63, 2 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 869, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bieber-v-bininbaum-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack