From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grahame v. Rochester Teachers Association

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim was not subsumed by the union’s duty of fair representation because the collective bargaining agreement did not address the benefits at issue

Summary of this case from Cecil v. Am. Fed'n of St.

Opinion

Filed June 18, 1999

Appeal from the Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Polito, J. — Dismiss Pleading.

PRESENT: LAWTON, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, CALLAHAN AND BALIO, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleges a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's representative provided erroneous information to plaintiff's decedent regarding her retirement benefits ( see, Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417). We reject the contention of defendant that the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege that the individual members of defendant union ratified the acts of their representative. Plaintiff is not required to allege ratification of the alleged negligent act where the action against defendant union is based on the negligence of its agent "in the course of performing an essential activity of the [union]" ( Torres v. Lacey, 5 Misc.2d 11, 13, mod on other grounds 3 A.D.2d 998). Defendant further contends that plaintiff's cause of action is in essence one for breach of the duty of fair representation but is couched in terms of negligence in order to circumvent the Statute of Limitations and evidentiary problems. We disagree. The collective bargaining agreement does not address employees' retirement benefits, and thus the alleged negligent misrepresentation action was not subsumed by the duty of fair representation ( see, McClary v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 133 A.D.2d 522; see generally, United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 371).


Summaries of

Grahame v. Rochester Teachers Association

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim was not subsumed by the union’s duty of fair representation because the collective bargaining agreement did not address the benefits at issue

Summary of this case from Cecil v. Am. Fed'n of St.

rejecting the contention that the complaint must be dismissed based on the plaintiff's failure to allege ratification by the individual union members because "Plaintiff is not required to allege ratification of the alleged negligent act where the action against defendant union is based on the negligence of its agent 'in the course of performing an essential activity of the [union],'" but noting also that the misrepresentation was made as to a matter not addressed in the collective bargaining agreement

Summary of this case from Cruz v. United Auto. Workers Union Local 2300
Case details for

Grahame v. Rochester Teachers Association

Case Details

Full title:HARRIET E. GRAHAME, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLE A. WEMETT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 18, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 537

Citing Cases

Walsh v. Torres-Lynch

It further alleges that the Union's conduct was intentional and caused plaintiff to suffer emotional…

Piniewski v. Panepinto

In his answer, Panepinto asserts a cross claim for contribution against Local 210. Supreme Court erred in…