Rudnick v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudnick v. Jacobson

284 A.D. 1064

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 1064 (Rudnick v. Jacobson) 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

Rudnick v. Jacobson, 284 A.D. 1064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin picketing and for other relief, defendants appeal from the judgment granting a permanent injunction and from an order denying their motion to modify the provisions of said judgment. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The evidence warranted the findings of the Official Referee that the purpose of the picketing was to coerce the respondents into signing a contract which would recognize the union as the sole bargaining agent for the employees. That was not a lawful purpose. (Goodwins, Inc., v. Sagedorn, 303 N. Y. 300; Building Service Union v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 532.) In the application, which in effect sought to modify the judgment made by order to show cause dated two days after the entry of judgment, there Was no express renunciation of the unlawful purpose or specific statement that future picketing was not intended to compel the execution of a contract recognizing the union as the sole bargaining agent. Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ. [See 285 App. Div. 830.]

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

In an action to enjoin picketing and for other relief, defendants appeal from the judgment granting a permanent injunction and from an order denying their motion to modify the provisions of said judgment. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The evidence warranted the findings of the Official Referee that the purpose of the picketing was to coerce the respondents into signing a contract which would recognize the union as the sole bargaining agent for the employees. That was not a lawful purpose. (Goodwins, Inc., v. Sagedorn, 303 N. Y. 300; Building Service Union v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 532.) In the application, which in effect sought to modify the judgment made by order to show cause dated two days after the entry of judgment, there Was no express renunciation of the unlawful purpose or specific statement that future picketing was not intended to compel the execution of a contract recognizing the union as the sole bargaining agent. Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ. [See 285 App. Div. 830.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudnick-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack