PALLADINO, EUGENE v. CNY CENTRO, INC.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PALLADINO, EUGENE v. CNY CENTRO, INC.

101 A.D.3d 1653, 956 N.Y.2d 742, 956 N.Y.S.2d 742

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2012

DocketCA 12-01130

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1653 (PALLADINO, EUGENE v. CNY CENTRO, INC.) 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

PALLADINO, EUGENE v. CNY CENTRO, INC., 101 A.D.3d 1653, 956 N.Y.2d 742, 956 N.Y.S.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*1654 Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that granted only in part their respective motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaints against them. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court should have granted their motions in their entirety. Defendants Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 580 (Union) and Charles Watson, as business agent of the Union, contend that the Union is a voluntary unincorporated association and that plaintiff has failed even to plead that the Union’s conduct was authorized or ratified by the entire membership of the association. We agree (see Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276, 282 [1951]; Zanghi v Laborers’ Intl. Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 8 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 703 [2005]). Thus, we further agree with those defendants that plaintiffs contention that the Union breached its duty of fair representation is “fatally defective” (Walsh v Torres-Lynch, 266 AD2d 817, 818 [1999]). In light of our conclusion, we do not address defendants’ remaining contentions. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Valentino, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.

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

*1654 Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that granted only in part their respective motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaints against them. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court should have granted their motions in their entirety. Defendants Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 580 (Union) and Charles Watson, as business agent of the Union, contend that the Union is a voluntary unincorporated association and that plaintiff has failed even to plead that the Union’s conduct was authorized or ratified by the entire membership of the association. We agree (see Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276, 282 [1951]; Zanghi v Laborers’ Intl. Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 8 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 703 [2005]). Thus, we further agree with those defendants that plaintiffs contention that the Union breached its duty of fair representation is “fatally defective” (Walsh v Torres-Lynch, 266 AD2d 817, 818 [1999]). In light of our conclusion, we do not address defendants’ remaining contentions. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Valentino, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1653, 956 N.Y.2d 742, 956 N.Y.S.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palladino-eugene-v-cny-centro-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack