New York City Transit Authority v. Quill

• Decision Date: 31 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 1,AFL-CIO,No. 2,1,2
• Citation: 266 N.Y.S.2d 296,48 Misc.2d 940
• Parties: NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. QUILL, Individually, and as International President, et al., Defendants. Action NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. John W. ROWLAND, Individually, and as General Executive Board Member of Amalgamated Transit Union,, et al., Defendants. ActionSupreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 296

266 N.Y.S.2d 296

48 Misc.2d 940

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. QUILL, Individually, and as International President, et al., Defendants.

Action No. 1.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. John W. ROWLAND, Individually, and as General Executive Board Member of Amalgamated Transit Union AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants Action No. 2 Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

Dec. 31, 1965.

Sidney Brandes, New York City, for New York City Transit Authority.

O'Donnell & Schwartz, Waldman, New York City, for defendants in Action No. 1.

Herbert A. Simon, New York City, for defendants in Action No. 2.

GEORGE TILZER, Justice.

These motions for injunction, argued together, and considered simultaneously, are, for all purposes, deemed consolidated.

Preliminarily, the Court was apprised by all parties that in the matter of the New York City Transit Authority, plaintiff, v. John W. Rowland, et al., application was made to the United States District Court (Southern District of New York) for removal to that court. On motion of the plaintiff to remand this cause to the Supreme Court of New York County, State of New York, the said application to remand was in all respects granted in view of the fact that this action was not properly removable to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Accordingly, an order was made on December 31, 1965 by Honorable Sylvester J. Ryan, Chief Judge of that court, to that effect.

This action was instituted to obtain an injunction against the defendants from calling a strike which is to commence at 5 a. m. on January 1, 1966, and from urging and instigating plaintiff's employees to join such strike. Upon the extended arguments in behalf of all the parties and the briefs submitted by them, and because of the exigencies of time, this Court renders this brief opinion dispositive of the issues.

They allege, and have established, that the defendants have called a strike of the plaintiff's employees to commence at or about 5 a. m. on January 1, 1966. This threat hangs ominously over the lifeline of all the citizens of the City of New York, and should a strike be actually called at 5 a. m., as threatened, general paralysis of the activities of the inhabitants of this city will ultimately ensue.

The law on this subject has been enunciated and followed beyond peradventure of any doubt. In the leading case of New York City Transit Authority v. Loos et al., 2 Misc.2d 733, 154 N.Y.S.2d 209 (1956), aff'd 3 A.D.2d 740, 161 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1st Dept. 1957), the Court granted a temporary injunction restraining certain employees from striking or instigating a strike or other work stoppage. This case was cited with approval in the Matter of Lerner v. Casey, 2 N.Y.2d 355, at page 367, 161 N.Y.S.2d 7, at page 16, 141 N.E.2d 533, at page 539, aff'd 357 U.S. 468, 78 S.Ct. 1311, 2 L.Ed.2d 1423; reh. den. 358 U.S. 858, 79 S.Ct. 12, 3 L.Ed.2d 91 (1958) in which Chief Judge Conway reached the conclusion that the Transit Authority had been properly designated a security agency and stated (2 N.Y.2d p. 367, 161 N.Y.S.2d p. 16, 141 N.E.2d p. 539):

'The Transit Authority performs a function necessary to the security or defense of the nation and the state. This fact was vividly demonstrated recently when certain New York City subway motormen went out on strike. Mr. Justice Lupiano, Special Term, New York County, in issuing an injunction against those motormen, aptly pointed out, New York City Transit Authority v. Loos, 2 Misc.2d 733, 738, 154 N.Y.S.2d 209, 214:

"It is easy to forget, while the subways are running, that there is room for motor vehicles on the streets only because millions travel by subway; for if all persons had to use surface transportation, the bridges and tunnels and main highways would soon be hopelessly clogged. New York with its immense territory and its five separate boroughs, all protected by unified police and fire departments and having many other integrated services, is dependent for its very life and daily functioning, and for the immediate safety of its 8,000,000 inhabitants, on rapid transit facilities which are necessarily used by nearly all persons engaged in all of its governmental and other vital functions. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, and under other conditions, whatever may have been the case in other times, here and now, and for this city, the operation of the rapid transit facilities is a basic governmental service indispensable to the conduct of all other governmental as well as private activities necessary for the...