Kaminsky v. Connolly

New York Court of Appeals

Kaminsky v. Connolly

41 N.Y. 1068

DecidedMay 3, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.Y. 1068 (Kaminsky v. Connolly) 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

Kaminsky v. Connolly, 41 N.Y. 1068 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

[1069]*1069Memorandum. The suit against the union was properly brought (see CPLR 1025; General Association Law, § 13; see, also, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 305.04, p 3-165 [1975]), and State courts have jurisdiction of the matter (see Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171, 176-188). Since plaintiff has, in our view, failed to show any breach by the union of the duty of fair representation, our review need go no further. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

[1069]*1069Memorandum. The suit against the union was properly brought (see CPLR 1025; General Association Law, § 13; see, also, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 305.04, p 3-165 [1975]), and State courts have jurisdiction of the matter (see Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171, 176-188). Since plaintiff has, in our view, failed to show any breach by the union of the duty of fair representation, our review need go no further. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.Y. 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminsky-v-connolly-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack