Phalen v. International Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees

27 A.D.2d 909, 278 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 6, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 909 (Phalen v. International Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees) 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
Phalen v. International Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees, 27 A.D.2d 909, 278 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Order entered on September 7, 1966 denying cross motion of respondent-appellant reversed on the law, and cross motion to dismiss petition granted, without costs or disbursements. In the absence of a violation of a statutory duty, an article 78 proceeding for mandamus does not lie. This is the present state of the law in this State, according to an unbroken line of precedents. The learned court below indicated its awareness of this, but opined that because of socio-economic changes vis-a-vis unions, there should be a change. That may very well be, and the cause, indeed, may be just, but achieving such a change by judicial fiat is beyond the competence of this court. Redress should come from the Legislature. (See CPLR 7803, subd. 1; Matter of Weidenfeld v. Keppler, 84 App. Div. 235, affd. 176 N. Y. 562; People ex rel. Solomon v. Brotherhood of Painters, 218 N. Y. 115, 121; Simons v. Berry, 210 App. Div. 90, 93; Oliphant v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 156 F. Supp. 89, affd. 262 F. 2d 359, cert. den. 359 U. S. 935.) Further, the grievance of these petitioners is arguably within the ambit of the National Labor Relations Act, as indicated by their own previous recourse to this statute, although subsequently withdrawn. However, there is no purpose in pursuing this point, as the main reasons (supra) for rejecting the order are rudimentary. Concur —■ Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.; Steuer and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion of Markowitz, J., at Special Term. [51 Misc 2d 334.]

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

Related

Nassau Chapter Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau
154 Misc. 2d 545 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Ivey v. Coughlin
111 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Mars Associates, Inc. v. Goldin
59 A.D.2d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
H. Sand & Co. v. Goldin
59 A.D.2d 213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Smith v. Frank
70 Misc. 2d 558 (New York Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 A.D.2d 909, 278 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phalen-v-international-alliance-of-theatrical-stage-employees-nyappdiv-1967.