Citation Numbers: 204 Misc. 521
Judges: Steuer
Filed Date: 1/23/1953
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
In this action for an injunction plaintiff moves for a temporary injunction and defendant cross-moves to dismiss the complaint. The material facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff is in the business of putting on various types of entertainment. On New Year’s Eve he staged a vaudeville show at Carnegie Hall. One of the performers who was consulted
Defendant’s first contention, that this is a labor dispute and hence not subject to injunction without proof of compliance with the relevant provisions of law (Civ. Prac. Act, § 876-a) is unsound (Exchange Bakery v. Rifkin, 245 N. Y. 260). Their second contention is that they have a right to do what, they are doing — that is publicize their grievance and seek support. The answer is that they have such right if their grievance is lawful but not if it isn’t (Rochette & Parzini Corp. v. Campo, 301 N. Y. 228). The object here is to compel plaintiff to abide by defendant’s decision in a dispute in which one of its own members is a party. There is no contention that plaintiff consented to the union’s trial board as an arbiter. Just how defendant claims to acquire the right to adjudicate an issue of whether or not a contract exists between its members and a third party is not clear but the justification is more cynical than legal. The claim is that the people defendant’s members deal with are so insubstantial that resort to the regularly constituted tribunals is ineffective. To seek to compel a resort to a self-constituted tribunal is not a lawful purpose and the situation is not improved any by the fact that the membership of the tribunal in relation to the matters coming before it would not meet any known standard of disinterestedness.
Motion for injunction granted. Motion to dismiss complaint denied.