From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davega-City Radio, Inc., v. Randau

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Oct 19, 1937
166 Misc. 246 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)

Opinion

October 19, 1937.

Conroy Hardy [ Reginald S. Hardy of counsel], for the plaintiff.

Protter Bagley [ Julius E. Bagley of counsel], for the defendants.


Injunction pendente lite denied. A secondary boycott, as is here presented, prosecuted by pickets carrying signs denouncing plaintiff as an advertiser in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the employees of which are on strike, is within the very broad definition of the term "labor dispute" made in section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, particularly subdivision 10, paragraph (c), which extends to "any * * * controversy arising out of the respective interests of employer and employee regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the relation of employer and employee." ( Manhattan Steam Bakery, Inc., v. Schindler, 250 A.D. 467.) That being so, it follows that the jurisdictional requirements of section 876-a ( supra) must be applied; and since such are not supplied by the complaint the court is under the express prohibition of subdivision 1 of said section of issuing any injunction.


Summaries of

Davega-City Radio, Inc., v. Randau

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Oct 19, 1937
166 Misc. 246 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
Case details for

Davega-City Radio, Inc., v. Randau

Case Details

Full title:DAVEGA-CITY RADIO, INC., Plaintiff, v. CARL RANDAU, President, or "JOHN…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Oct 19, 1937

Citations

166 Misc. 246 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
1 N.Y.S.2d 514

Citing Cases

People v. Durao

50 (1) of the CPL requires that an accusatory instrument be filed with the court at or before the return date…

Mlle. Reif, Inc. v. Randau

To begin with, the defendants assert that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief, since non-compliance with…