Legal Opinion
Stalban v. Friedman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 17, 1940PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per 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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Goldfinger v. FeintuchNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Boro Park Sanitary Live Poultry Market, Inc. v. HellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Fairbanks Cube Steak House, Inc. v. VieraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
3Cited by2 opinions
- Markham & Callow, Inc. v. International WoodworkersOregon Supreme Court · 1943
- Empire Ralph Corp. v. Moving Picture Machine Operators Union Local 306 AFL-CIONew York Supreme Court · 1956