Morton v. Mulgrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morton v. Mulgrew

2016 NY Slip Op 7270, 144 A.D.3d 447, 39 N.Y.S.3d 789

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

Docket2134 6522111/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7270 (Morton v. Mulgrew) 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

Morton v. Mulgrew, 2016 NY Slip Op 7270, 144 A.D.3d 447, 39 N.Y.S.3d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered July 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleges that New York United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO, breached the duty of fair *448 representation to plaintiffs by ratifying, on June 3, 2014, a collective bargaining agreement that provided for wage increases retroactive to the October 31, 2009 expiration of the preceding agreement both for members employed on June 3, 2014 and for members who had retired after October 31, 2009, but not for former members, such as plaintiffs, who had resigned from their employment between those two dates.

Cognizant of the obstacle to this suit presented by the Martin rule, which “limit[s] such suits ... to cases where the individual liability of every single member can be alleged and proven” (Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276, 282 [1951]; General Associations Law § 13), plaintiffs argue that the rule was abrogated by the enactment of the Taylor Law in 1967 (Civil Service Law § 200 et seq.), or by its 1990 amendment. This argument is unavailing in light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the Martin rule (even as it questioned the rule’s “continued utility or wisdom”) (Palladino v CNY Centro, Inc., 23 NY3d 140, 150 [2014]).

Given the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiffs’ remaining contentions.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered July 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleges that New York United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO, breached the duty of fair *448 representation to plaintiffs by ratifying, on June 3, 2014, a collective bargaining agreement that provided for wage increases retroactive to the October 31, 2009 expiration of the preceding agreement both for members employed on June 3, 2014 and for members who had retired after October 31, 2009, but not for former members, such as plaintiffs, who had resigned from their employment between those two dates.

Cognizant of the obstacle to this suit presented by the Martin rule, which “limit[s] such suits ... to cases where the individual liability of every single member can be alleged and proven” (Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276, 282 [1951]; General Associations Law § 13), plaintiffs argue that the rule was abrogated by the enactment of the Taylor Law in 1967 (Civil Service Law § 200 et seq.), or by its 1990 amendment. This argument is unavailing in light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the Martin rule (even as it questioned the rule’s “continued utility or wisdom”) (Palladino v CNY Centro, Inc., 23 NY3d 140, 150 [2014]).

Given the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiffs’ remaining contentions.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7270, 144 A.D.3d 447, 39 N.Y.S.3d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-mulgrew-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack