Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. Delaney

42 A.D.2d 521, 345 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 7, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 521 (Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. Delaney) 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

Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. Delaney, 42 A.D.2d 521, 345 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

—'Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 3, 1973, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion of plaintiff-respondent for summary judgment denied, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remitted to Trial Term, Supreme Court, New York County, for speedy trial, the order of temporary injunction of Justice Fine, entered May 12, 1972, to remain in effect in the interim, without costs. Sufficient appears in the motion papers to justify the temporary restraining [522]*522order against picketing, which is hereby revived. However, there are issues of fact as to'whether defendant-appellant labor organization is indeed responsible for the picketing, whether it has an illegal object, and, among others, whether an injunction would actually interfere with constitutional rights of defendants to disseminate information. A trial is required to decide these issues, which may not be resolved summarily on the papers before us. In this . connection, it is observed that the court which issued the permanent injunction ■ declined to hold in contempt members of defendant union accused of violating the temporary restraining order. The parties are urged to resolve the issues by early trial, in furtherance of which any- remaining pretrial procedures may be deemed waived. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

—'Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 3, 1973, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion of plaintiff-respondent for summary judgment denied, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remitted to Trial Term, Supreme Court, New York County, for speedy trial, the order of temporary injunction of Justice Fine, entered May 12, 1972, to remain in effect in the interim, without costs. Sufficient appears in the motion papers to justify the temporary restraining [522]*522order against picketing, which is hereby revived. However, there are issues of fact as to'whether defendant-appellant labor organization is indeed responsible for the picketing, whether it has an illegal object, and, among others, whether an injunction would actually interfere with constitutional rights of defendants to disseminate information. A trial is required to decide these issues, which may not be resolved summarily on the papers before us. In this . connection, it is observed that the court which issued the permanent injunction ■ declined to hold in contempt members of defendant union accused of violating the temporary restraining order. The parties are urged to resolve the issues by early trial, in furtherance of which any- remaining pretrial procedures may be deemed waived. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 521, 345 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-bronx-surface-transit-operating-authority-v-delaney-nyappdiv-1973.