Mount Sinai Hospital, Inc. v. Davis
Decision Date | 24 June 1959 |
Docket Number | AFL-CI,D |
Citation | 188 N.Y.S.2d 298,8 A.D.2d 361 |
Parties | , 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2182, 37 Lab.Cas. P 65,580 MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Leon J. DAVIS, individually and as President, and Edward Ayash, individually and as Secretary-Treasurer, of Local 1199, Retail Drug Employees Union et al.,efendants-Appellants-Respondents. BETH DAVID HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Leon J. DAVIS et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. BETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Leon J. DAVIS et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. BRONX HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Leon J. DAVIS et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. LENOX HILL HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Leon J. DAVIS et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David L. Benetar, New York City, of counsel (Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, Nordlinger, Riegelman, Benetar & Charney, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Poletti & Freidin, and Harold M. Weston, New York City, attorneys), for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.
Joseph Tauber, New York City, of counsel (Weinstock & Tauber, New York City, attorneys), for defendants-appellants-respondents.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE, McNALLY, and STEVENS, JJ.
These five consolidated appeals are by plaintiffs--voluntary charitable hospitals in the City of New York--from orders denying their motions to adjudge defendant, Local 1199, Retail Drug Employees Union and specified individuals guilty of contempt in violating the provisions of temporary injunctions and restraining orders of the Supreme Court.
On May 25, 1959, Justice Tilzer, sitting at Special Term, issued temporary injunction orders enjoining strikes--and picketing incident thereto--at plaintiffs' hospitals, and provided for an immediate trial of the actions. Notwithstanding the service of Justice Tilzer's orders, the strikes and picketing continued. The five hospitals thereupon applied at Special Term to adjudge Local 1199 and specified officials of Local 1199 guilty of contempt.
Denial of the motions to punish for contempt is bottomed on the conclusion by the Special Term Justice that the injunctions were improperly issued and that the strikes were lawful and non-enjoinable. We hold (1) that the Special Term Justice in arriving at his conclusion improperly arrogated the power to pass upon, and in effect review, the validity of the orders of a fellow Justice of co-ordinate jurisdiction; (2) that the conclusion that the injunction orders were void, conflicts with appellate court decisions which have uniformly held otherwise, including a decision by this Court handed down the same day as the Special Term orders under review; and (3) that irrespective of the claimed impropriety or invalidity of the injunction orders it was the duty of the Union and its officials, in the circumstances presented here, to obey those orders until they were set aside by proper procedures and their failure to do so constitutes criminal contempt of the Court's orders.
1. A Judge of a court should not ordinarily reconsider, disturb or overrule an order in the same action of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. As was said in In re Hines, 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 423, 425: 'Such a rule is essential to an orderly and seemly administration of justice in a court composed of several judges'.
The question of jurisdiction to act, in the face of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, had been presented and litigated before Special Term upon the prior motions for temporary injunctions. In view of the existing case law on the inapplicability of section 876-a to voluntary charitable hospitals, it convincingly appeared that, in granting the injunctions, the court was not acting without jurisdiction. At most, there were involved questions of law and discretion that could be reviewed only by appellate courts when properly presented to them. There was neither necessity nor warrant for another Justice to depart from the rulings so made, particularly since there was recognition of the inappropriateness of one co-ordinate court reviewing the acts of another.
2. Moreover, in finding that the injunction orders were void, in violation of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, Special Term cited, but did not follow, recent decisions in this and the Second Department. Jewish Hospital of Brooklyn, v. Doe, 252 App.Div. 581, 300 N.Y.S. 1111; Society of New York Hospital V. Hanson, 185 Misc. 937, 59 N.Y.S.2d 91, affirmed 272 App.Div. 998, 73 N.Y.S.2d 835; see also Jewish Hospital of Brooklyn v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 786, 187 N.Y.S.2d 984. Even an appellate court would not review the propriety of such injunctions on a motion to punish for criminal contempt whatever it might do on a direct appeal, and we do not purport to do so now. On the instant appeal we are concerned only with the motions to punish for contempt, as Special Term should have been.
3. Finally, it is elemental that a contemnor may not question the validity of the order violated. Daly v. Amberg, 126 N.Y. 490, 27 N.E. 1038. The purpose of a criminal contempt proceeding for willful disobedience of its lawful mandate is to vindicate the authority of the court and its orders. See People ex rel. Munsell v. Court of Oyer & Term., 101 N.Y. 245, 4 N.E. 259; King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182. While upon a motion to cite for civil contempt, a court may look into the propriety of the order violated (Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 77 N.E. 657; Koenig v. Eagle Waist Co. Inc., 176 App.Div. 724, 163 N.Y.S. 1021) no such power should be exercised in proceedings to punish for criminal contempt.
In United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 678, 91 L.Ed. 884, the United States Supreme Court held that the respondents were guilty of criminal contempt even if a 'labor dispute' were involved and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. deprived the District Court of 'jurisdiction' to issue the restraining order. The court there held (330 U.S. at [8 A.D.2d 364] page 293, 67 S.Ct. at page 696): 'an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.' In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in his concurring opinion in that case (330 U.S. at pages 309-310, 67 S.Ct. at page 704): 'Only when a court is so obviously traveling outside its orbit as to be merely usurping judicial forms and facilities, may an order issued by a court be disobeyed and treated as though it were a letter to a newspaper.'
As indicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Overmyer v. Eliot Realty
...v. Puro, 33 N.Y.2d 805, 350 N.Y.S.2d 658, 305 N.E.2d 778; Peo. ex rel. Stearns v. Marr, 181 N.Y. 463, 74 N.E. 431; Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298; Mtr. of Waterhouse v. Celli, 71 Misc.2d 600, 336 N.Y.S.2d 960; Brandenburg v. Metropol. Store Assn., 29 Misc.2d 817,......
-
Dondi v. Jones
...disturb or overrule an order in the same action of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction (cf. Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 362--363, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298, 299--301). Thus, petitioner's failure to institute a motion under subdivision 2 of section 149 of the Judiciary Law does no......
-
Proceeding for Support under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, Matter of
...support payments. . . .' 1 This Court is bound by that ruling, it being not only the law of the case (see Mt. Sinai Hospital v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1st Dept.); Brown v. Brown, 71 Misc.2d 818, 337 N.Y.S.2d 465, aff'd. 39 A.D.2d 897, 334 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1st Dept.)) but a con......
-
Garry v. Garry
...violated. See United States v. United Mine Workers, supra, 330 U.S. at 294-95, 67 S.Ct. at 696-97 (dicta); Mount Sinai Hospital Inc. v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298, 301, app. den. 9 A.D.2d 641, 191 N.Y.S.2d 546 (1st Dept.1959) (dicta); 21 NY Jur 2d, Contempt § 28; Weinstein, Korn ......
-
Part XXXIII Contempt Motions Continued Contempt Motions Continued
...supra note 1, at 354.[1429] . Id. at 362; Byer’s Civil Motions, supra note 3, at § 19:01, at 220 (citing Mount Sinai Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 363, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298, 301 (1st Dep’t 1959) (“[I]t is elemental that a contemnor may not question the validity of the order violated. The ......