Legal Opinion

Burba v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

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

Decided April 8, 1988PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Order reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), notified construction contractors in the area that it would not permit employment of plaintiffs on property owned by RG&E. Plaintiffs, members of labor unions, brought this action against RG&E alleging that RG&E intentionally interfered with their rights to employment under the union contracts. RG&E moved for summary judgment and Special Term denied the motion. On appeal, RG&E contends that plaintiffs have no cause of action for intentional interference with…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Burba v. Rochester Gas & Electric CorpAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Purgess v. SharrockCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  2. Purgess v. SharrockCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  3. George Lombard and Lomar, Inc. v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. ("Bah"), and W. Frank Jones, Individually and as an Employee of BahCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
  4. Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  5. Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API