Canepa v. "John Doe"

New York Court of Appeals

Canepa v. "John Doe"

12 N.E.2d 790, 277 N.Y. 52, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 952

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 12 N.E.2d 790 (Canepa v. "John Doe") 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

Canepa v. "John Doe", 12 N.E.2d 790, 277 N.Y. 52, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 952 (N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint sufficiently alleges that the picketing by the defendants is part of a true secondary . boycott and an unlawful interference with the business *55 of the plaintiff (Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281.) Whether or not the case is one “ involving or growing out of a labor dispute ” as these terms are defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, the complaint is sufficient.

The order should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is not answered and the second question is answered in the affirmative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hitbbs, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

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