Stalban v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stalban v. Friedman

259 A.D. 520, 19 N.Y.S.2d 978, 6 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1087, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191

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

DecidedMay 17, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 520 (Stalban v. Friedman) 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

Stalban v. Friedman, 259 A.D. 520, 19 N.Y.S.2d 978, 6 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1087, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record discloses that a “ labor dispute ” was here involved, even though members of the defendant unions were not employed by the plaintiff. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 876-a, subd. 10; Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281; May’s Furs & Ready-to-Wear, Inc., v. Bauer, 282 id. 331. See, also, Lauf v. Shinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323; New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., Id. 552.) The plaintiff, having failed to plead or prove the facts prescribed by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, could not be accorded injunctive relief. (Boro Park Market v. Heller, 280 N. Y. 481.) The question is not affected by the fact, if it be a fact, that the State Labor Relations Board has held that the union, whose members are now employed by the plaintiff, is the proper agency for collective bargaining. (Fairbanks Cube Steak House, Inc., v. Viera, 259 App. Div. 804.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Settle order on notice, reversing findings inconsistent with this determination and containing such new findings of fact proved upon the trial as are necessary to sustain the judgment hereby awarded,

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

Per Curiam.

The record discloses that a “ labor dispute ” was here involved, even though members of the defendant unions were not employed by the plaintiff. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 876-a, subd. 10; Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281; May’s Furs & Ready-to-Wear, Inc., v. Bauer, 282 id. 331. See, also, Lauf v. Shinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323; New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., Id. 552.) The plaintiff, having failed to plead or prove the facts prescribed by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, could not be accorded injunctive relief. (Boro Park Market v. Heller, 280 N. Y. 481.) The question is not affected by the fact, if it be a fact, that the State Labor Relations Board has held that the union, whose members are now employed by the plaintiff, is the proper agency for collective bargaining. (Fairbanks Cube Steak House, Inc., v. Viera, 259 App. Div. 804.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Settle order on notice, reversing findings inconsistent with this determination and containing such new findings of fact proved upon the trial as are necessary to sustain the judgment hereby awarded,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 520, 19 N.Y.S.2d 978, 6 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1087, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stalban-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack