Gosper v. Fancher

49 A.D.2d 674, 371 N.Y.S.2d 28, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2336, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 674 (Gosper v. Fancher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gosper v. Fancher, 49 A.D.2d 674, 371 N.Y.S.2d 28, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2336, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse the award of damages and a new trial granted on that issue and otherwise judgment affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In 1965 plaintiff, a fireman employed by the Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company, was discharged on two grounds. He initiated grievance procedures through defendant union which acted in bad faith and violated its duty of fair representation by handling plaintiff’s grievance in a perfunctory manner (Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171; Scott v Anchor Motor Freight, 496 F2d 276, cert den 419 US 868). He then brought this action for damages against his union. Upon the trial the jury was erroneously charged that the difference between plaintiff’s prior fireman’s income and his reduced income after termination was a proper measure of damages. The union, however, was only liable for loss of employment damages "to the extent that its refusal to handle the grievances added to the difficulty and expense of collecting from the employer” (Czosek v O’Mara, 397 US 25, 29; Schum v South Buffalo By. Co., 496 F2d 328). Because plaintiff has not established any compensable damages within this rule of Federal labor law we are, therefore, constrained to reverse and grant a new trial on the issue of damages only. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in action for damages for processing of grievance.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Moule, Mahoney, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

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

Related

Rigby v. Coughlin
730 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. New York, 1990)
Baker v. Board of Education
514 N.E.2d 1109 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
McClary v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
130 Misc. 2d 883 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Smith v. Sipe
109 A.D.2d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Civil Service Bar Ass'n v. City of New York
474 N.E.2d 587 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Allen v. New York City Transit Authority
109 Misc. 2d 178 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Albino v. City of New York
80 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Santos v. Security & Law Enforcement Employees
80 A.D.2d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
De Cherro v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
60 A.D.2d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.2d 674, 371 N.Y.S.2d 28, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2336, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gosper-v-fancher-nyappdiv-1975.