Ash v. Holdeman, 88
| Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,No. 88,A,88 |
| Citation | 5 A.D.2d 1017,174 N.Y.S.2d 215 |
| Parties | , 34 Lab.Cas. P 71,548 William C. ASH, individually and as President, and Harry Martin, individually and as Secretary-Business Manager of New York Associationof Masters and Mates of the National Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots of America, Respondents-Appellants, v. Arthur L. HOLDEMAN, C. W. Boring, Richard Polacheck, John Doe, John Roe and others, names unknown, persons intended being in and about the premises 105-107 Washington Street, New York, New York, Appellants-Respondents; Roy Lurvey, as International Trustee of Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Inc.,dded Party Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John S. Harold, for appellant.
Marvin Schwartz, New York City, for Roy Lurvey.
Howard Schulman, New York City, for respondents-appellants Ash and Martin.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, BELDOCK, MURPHY and HALLINAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to restrain appellants-respondents from interfering with the affairs of New York Association No. 88 of Masters and Mates of the National Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots of America and from holding themselves out as officers of said local union, and for other relief the appeals are from an order granting an injunction pendente lite which, inter alia, restrains appellants-respondents from such acts, directs that they turn over the books and records of the local to the International Trustee, and orders an immediate trial of the action.
Order modified (1) by striking therefrom subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the first ordering paragraph, (2) by striking from said order the second and third ordering paragraphs, (3) by adding to said order a provision ordering defendants to keep intact all the property and records of said New York Association No. 88 heretofore and hereafter received by them, to make no withdrawal or other disposition of any of its funds, except on further order of the court, and to serve forthwith a copy of the order upon every bank or other depository holding funds belonging to, or to the credit of, said New York Association No. 88 and at the same time notify in writing said banks or depositories that such funds are to be held intact pending the determination of the action or the further order of the court, and (4) by adding to said order a further provision that nothing contained in the order shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tenzer v. Tucker
...effect thereof is to grant to plaintiff the same relief which may ultimately be obtained after a trial on the merits (Ash v. Holdeman, 5 A.D.2d 1017, 174 N.Y.S.2d 215; see also Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 77 N.E. 657). Moreover, a Court cannot grant a mandatory preliminary injuncti......
-
Meadow Brook Nat. Bank v. Meadowbrook Securities, Inc.
...right to the relief demanded is clearly shown (Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 905, 149 N.Y.S.2d 739; Ash v. Holdeman, 5 A.D.2d 1017, 174 N.Y.S.2d 215). The relief should be refused in cases where it will do greater damage or create greater injury to the defendant than it......
-
MacIntyre v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793, 631 N.Y.S.2d 167; Morgan v. New York Racing Assn., 72 A.D.2d 740, 741, 421 N.Y.S.2d 249; Ash v. Holdeman, 5 A.D.2d 1017, 1018, 174 N.Y.S.2d 215). When, as here, there are sharply contested issues of fact that can only be determined at trial, the plaintiffs have f......
-
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. First Republic Corp. v. America
...to the relief demanded is clearly shown (Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, Inc., 1 App.Div.2d 905, 149 N.Y.S.2d 739; Ash v. Holdeman, 5 App.Div.2d 1017, 174 N.Y.S.2d 215). The relief should be refused in cases where it will do greater damage or create greater injury to the defendant than ......