Scivoletti v. Leckie
| Decision Date | 08 July 1957 |
| Citation | 4 A.D.2d 773,165 N.Y.S.2d 529 |
| Parties | , 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2559, 33 Lab.Cas. P 70,877 Otto SCIVOLETTI and Harry Galanis, respondents-appellants, v. Sal LECKIE, Individually and as President and Bruno Heideman, Individually and as Treasurer of Bartenders and Hotel and Restaurant Employees, Local 164, and Al Isaacson, appellants-respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Walter M. Colleran, New York City, for respondents-appellants.
Benjamin Mandelker, New York City, for appellants-respondents (William Bernstein, New York City, on brief).
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to enjoin defendants, respectively, as president, treasurer and general organizer of a local union, from refusing to recognize plaintiffs as members in good standing, and for other relief, the parties cross-appeal from the judgment entered after trial.
Judgment modified on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision dismissing the second and fourth causes of action contained in the complaint, and by striking therefrom the fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs awarding money damages to each of the plaintiffs. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein.
In our opinion, there was no proof offered before, or accepted by the Trial Justice in support of the second and fourth causes of action for the recovery of money damages as a consequence of a conspiracy by the defendants Leckie and Isaacson to deprive the plaintiffs of their status and rights as union members.
The plaintiffs were not entitled to the recovery of money damages from the defendant local union as a consequence of their unlawful deprivation by the individual defendants of their seniority rights since it was not shown that the general membership participated in the breach of contract or the tort upon which the plaintiffs predicated their right to relief (Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276, 281-282, 101 N.E.2d 683, 685-686; Browne v. Hibbets, 290 N.Y. 459, 49 N.E.2d 713; Glauber v. Patof, 294 N.Y. 583, 63 N.E.2d 181), or that some fraud, misconduct or bad faith on the part of the membership as a whole resulted in pecuniary injury to the plaintiffs (Havens v. King, 221 App.Div. 475, 481-482, 224 N.Y.S. 193, 199-200, affirmed Havens v. Dodge, 250 N.Y. 617, 166 N.E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Priscilla S. v. Albert B.
...261; Dowling v. Hastings, 211 N.Y. 199, 105 N.E. 194; Semerad v. City of Schenectady, 27 A.D.2d 673, 276 N.Y.S.2d 357; Scivolette v. Leckie, 4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 529; Fingerhut v. Kraylyn Enterprises, 71 Misc.2d 846, 337 N.Y.S.2d 394; and Matter of Estate of Weaver, 58 Misc.2d 901, 29......
-
Saint v. Pope
...appeal to reach a consideration of that statute. The law controlling the situation at bar is succinctly stated in Scivoletti v. Leckie, 4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 529, 530. Here the court in its memorandum stated: 'The plaintiffs were not entitled to the recovery of money damages from the d......
-
Honegger v. O'Connell
...N.Y. 276, 101 N.E.2d 683; Saint v . Pope, 12 A.D.2d 168, 211 N.Y.S.2d 9. The applicable law is concisely stated in Scivoletti v. Leckie, 4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 529, 530, where the court said 'The plaintiffs were not entitled to the recovery of money damages from the defendant local unio......
-
Rodgers v. O'Connell
...the 'resort to the internal processes of the organization for redress', which the cases cited have required. In Scivoletti v. Leckie, 4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 529, the court stated 'the plaintiffs were not entitled to the recovery of money damages from the defendant local union as a conse......