Wien v. Chelsea Theater Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wien v. Chelsea Theater Center

66 A.D.2d 741, 411 N.Y.S.2d 316, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14015

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 A.D.2d 741 (Wien v. Chelsea Theater Center) 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

Wien v. Chelsea Theater Center, 66 A.D.2d 741, 411 N.Y.S.2d 316, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 12, 1977, which denied the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint in this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted. The court at Special Term succinctly and carefully outlined the issues and they need no reiteration. However, we disagree in one area, that is on the question of pre-emption. The action complained of falls within the scope of section 8 (subd [b], par [6]) of the National Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (US Code, tit 29, § 158, subd [b], par [6] et seq.) and its exclusive Federal regulatory scheme. It does not fall within the exceptions to the doctrine enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in San Diego Unions v Garmon (359 US 236, 243-244, 247-248). See, also, Garner v Teamsters Union (346 US 485) and the statement of Senator Robert A. Taft in colloquy on the floor of the Senate with respect to the problem in the case at bar (93 Cong Rec 6446), cited in Newspaper Pub. Assn, v Labor Bd. (345 US 100, 110-111). Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Carpenters (436 US 180), which allowed both NLRB and State court action, does not, in our opinion, apply to the situation at bar. There the issue was picketing, and here the issue is featherbedding. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ. [91 Misc 2d 226.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 12, 1977, which denied the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint in this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted. The court at Special Term succinctly and carefully outlined the issues and they need no reiteration. However, we disagree in one area, that is on the question of pre-emption. The action complained of falls within the scope of section 8 (subd [b], par [6]) of the National Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (US Code, tit 29, § 158, subd [b], par [6] et seq.) and its exclusive Federal regulatory scheme. It does not fall within the exceptions to the doctrine enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in San Diego Unions v Garmon (359 US 236, 243-244, 247-248). See, also, Garner v Teamsters Union (346 US 485) and the statement of Senator Robert A. Taft in colloquy on the floor of the Senate with respect to the problem in the case at bar (93 Cong Rec 6446), cited in Newspaper Pub. Assn, v Labor Bd. (345 US 100, 110-111). Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Carpenters (436 US 180), which allowed both NLRB and State court action, does not, in our opinion, apply to the situation at bar. There the issue was picketing, and here the issue is featherbedding. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ. [91 Misc 2d 226.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 741, 411 N.Y.S.2d 316, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wien-v-chelsea-theater-center-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack