People on Complaint of Stewart v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1962
• Citation: 36 Misc.2d 833,233 N.Y.S.2d 988
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Complaint of Clyde W. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 988

233 N.Y.S.2d 988

36 Misc.2d 833

The PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Complaint of Clyde W. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County, Part I.

Oct. 15, 1962.

Benjamin J. Jacobson, Asst. Dist. Atty ., for Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty., Queens County, Kew Garden, for the People.

Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, by Burton A. Zorn, New York City, for defendant.

PETER T. FARRELL, Justice.

The defendant moves for a certificate pursuant to Sec. 32(b) of the New York City Criminal Court Act (L.1962, ch. 697, eff. Sept. 1, 1962) that it is reasonable that the charges contained in the complaint be prosecuted by indictment.

The defendant is charged with an alleged violation of Section 1120-2.0, subd. C of the Administrative Code of the City of New York . A violation of this section is a misdemeanor which, after conviction, could result in a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both. This is the so-called 'anti-strikebreaking' ordinance which was enacted in New York City on July 9, 1962.

The section under which the defendant moves is the former Sec. 31, subd. 1(c) of the New York City Criminal Courts Act (L.1910, ch. 659 as amd.) and provides that if a judge of this Court 'shall certify that it is reasonable that such charge [of misdemeanor] shall be prosecuted by indictment' the case shall be removed from the Court in which it is pending and presented to the Grand Jury of the County in which the charge is pending. In case of indictment it shall then be prosecuted in the same manner as a felony charge after indictment.

This charge arose by reason of a strike by members of the Flight Engineers International Association, Eastern Air Lines Chapter, which is still in progress. An application was made to City Magistrates' Court of the City of New York (now the Criminal Court of the City of New York), Borough of Queens, for a summons on the alleged violation of the aforesaid ordinance. On August 17, 1962, a complaint was issued against this defendant. A number of adjournments were had and subsequently this application was made on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant's application is based on the following grounds:

(1) This is a case of first impression which presents many complex legal questions including statutory interpretation, Federal and State pre-emption, whether the ordinance here at issue violates the due process, commerce and supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution and whether it violates the New York City Home Rule Law .

(2) Substantial property rights not only of Eastern but of its 17,000 nonstriking employees and the traveling public are involved.

(3) The decision in this case will be far-reaching in its effects upon the business community and upon labor-management relations both in the City of New York and elsewhere.

(4) This is an extraordinary and unusual case of a type which rarely appears in a Court of Special Sessions (sic).

The provision of Sec. 32(b) of the New York City Criminal Court Act is substantially the same as the former Sec. 31, subd. 1(c) of the former New York City Criminal Courts Act. This in turn was taken verbatim from a statute first enacted in 1897 (L.1897, Chap. 378, Greater New York Charter, § 1406, subd. 2).

The statute does not set any standards to determine when it is 'reasonable' for the Court to grant an application of this nature. Therefore the Court must consider each application on its own merits based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the application. In 1898 it was held in People v. Levy, 24 Misc. 469, 470, 53 N.Y.S. 643, '* * * that the reasons which would justify such a certificate must be something more than the mere preference of the defendant for a jury trial. Facts must be brought to the attention of the judge to whom the application is made, tending to show that the case is of an exceptional character, and that for some special reason the defendant cannot have a fair trial in the court of special sessions, (emphasis supplied) or that there are exceptional features in the case which render it desirable and proper that the action should be tried before a jury, rather than a justice of the special sessions.' (Application of Knight, 178 Misc. 972, 36 N.Y.S.2d 985; People v. Brownstein, 22 Misc.2d 299, 201 N.Y.S.2d 38; appeal dismissed 11 A.D.2d 3, 201 N.Y.S.2d 474).

In the moving papers herein the defendant urges as a basis for the requested relief, that this is a case of first impression presenting many difficult questions of law and is an extremely unusual type which rarely appears in a Court of Special Sessions (sic). This argument fails to impress the...