From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stolper v. Straughn

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Oct 17, 1940
175 Misc. 87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)

Opinion

October 17, 1940.

Milton H. Lehrer, for the plaintiff.

Williams Murray, for the defendants.


Defendant's testimony as to its aims and objects is not entitled to credence. I find that defendant is not a labor union or a labor organization of any kind. It is not a member of any single trade or class of trades, and its demands, likewise, are unconnected with any specific industry. The picketing sought to be enjoined is unrelated to any question of wages, hours of labor, unionization or betterment of working conditions. A labor dispute within the purview of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subdivision 10 of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, is, therefore, not involved. As that is the only issue presented, a permanent injunction against further picketing must be granted.


Summaries of

Stolper v. Straughn

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Oct 17, 1940
175 Misc. 87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)
Case details for

Stolper v. Straughn

Case Details

Full title:HARRY STOLPER, Plaintiff, v. ROGER STRAUGHN, as President of Amalgamated…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Oct 17, 1940

Citations

175 Misc. 87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)
23 N.Y.S.2d 604

Citing Cases

Lifshitz v. Straughn

A labor dispute within the purview of subdivision 10 of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act is not…