Beary v. Queens County Bar Ass'n
| Decision Date | 23 November 1960 |
| Parties | Application of Marie A. BEARY, Petitioner, v. QUEENS COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Patrick Beary, Jamaica, for petitioner .
George W. Herz, Jamaica, for respondent.
Petitioner, an attorney admitted to practice in this State and residing in Queens County, has instituted this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent, a county bar association (hereinafter called the Association), to forthwith admit her to membership.
According to her amended petition, verified on October 3, 1960, petitioner's application for membership, filed on February 15, 1960, was denied without having been processed as provided in Article XIV of the by-laws of the Association then in force and that insofar as Article VII thereof limited membership to male attorneys it violated her constitutional right to 'the equal protection of the laws' and was otherwise unlawful.
It appears from the filed papers that about three years ago a committee was appointed to completely revise the Association's by-laws. Such revision, completed during the summer of 1960, was, on September 1, 1960, presented to the Board of Managers, the Association's governing body. According to the affidavit of the Secretary of the Association, sworn to on October 17, 1960, and filed in support of its motion for leave to supplement its answer, the proposed revised by-laws were published in the October 1960 issue of the Association's official publication, the Queens Bar Bulletin, with a notice that such revision would be presented for adoption at the stated meeting to be held on October 10, 1960. The Secretary certified that 'Exhibit C', made part of his said affidavit was 'a true copy of the amended by-laws of the respondent Queens County Bar Association as duly adopted at its meeting on October 10, 1960 by a vote in excess of two-thirds of those present at said meeting' and the 'by-laws as set forth in 'Exhibit C' are presently in effect.'
A reading thereof shows that the former limitation of membership to male attorneys no longer exists so that an attorney of either sex, possessing the qualifications therein prescribed, was henceforth eligible for membership in the Association. Nevertheless, petitioner, on or about October 11, 1960, restored this proceeding to the calendar for hearing on November 9, 1960. The Association thereupon moved for leave to supplement its answer verified October 7, 1960, by asserting as a 'Third Defense' the fact that its by-laws limiting membership to male attorneys, in effect on February 15, 1960, when petitioner filed her application for membership and on June 3, 1960,...
To continue reading
Request your trial