Opinion
March 10, 1952.
Present — Nolan, P.J., Johnston, Adel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ.
Defendants appeal from so much of a final judgment permanently restraining them and the officers, agents and employees of defendant union, and all persons and associations acting in concert with them, from picketing plaintiff's ships, piers or property in this State, and from threatening, intimidating or coercing plaintiffs' employees and the employees of plaintiffs' stevedoring contractors, by any means, from performing their work. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the subdivision numbered "2" of the first decretal paragraph, and as so modified the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The finding of the Special Term, after trial, that the picket lines were not established as part of an organizational drive, but were retaliative in nature in a dispute with a rival union, was supported by sufficient competent evidence. Under the circumstances presented, the picketing, even though peaceful and not misleading, was unlawful and was properly enjoined. (Cf. Dinny Robbins, Inc., v. Davis, 290 N.Y. 101; Goodwins, Inc., v. Hagedorn, 303 N.Y. 300; Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470; Building Service Union v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, and Pacific Nav. Trading v. National Organization of Masters, Mates Pilots, 33 Wn.2d 675.) However, insofar as the judgment restrained threats, intimidation or coercion, it was unwarranted by the record. There was no proof of any such acts, nor was there evidence from which the danger of such acts in the future could be anticipated. (Cf. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426, and Eton Chemists, Inc., v. Sussman, 278 App. Div. 899.)