DUANE READE INC v. LOCAL 338 RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION UFCW AFL CIO (2005)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered January 9, 2004, which granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)7 to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 Dismissal of the claims against Local 338 was required because plaintiff failed to plead that each individual union member authorized or ratified the unlawful action (see Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276, 101 N.E.2d 683 [1951];  Zanghi v. Laborers' Intl. Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 8 A.D.3d 1033, 778 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 703, 790 N.Y.S.2d 650, 824 N.E.2d 51 [2005];  Piniewski v. Panepinto, 267 A.D.2d 1087, 1088, 701 N.Y.S.2d 215 [1999];  Walsh v. Torres-Lynch, 266 A.D.2d 817, 818, 697 N.Y.S.2d 434 [1999];  R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union, 789 F.Supp. 127, 132 [S.D.N.Y.1992] ).   In these circumstances, plaintiff's reliance solely on the general language of the union's constitution is insufficient under Martin in the absence of objective facts pleaded to support a finding of explicit authorization or ratification.

 The individual defendants cannot be held liable for acts committed in their capacity as union representatives, even if those acts were not authorized by the union membership (Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276, 101 N.E.2d 683, supra;  see also Complete Auto Tr. v. Reis, 451 U.S. 401, 101 S.Ct. 1836, 68 L.Ed.2d 248 [1981];  Morris v. Local 819, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, 169 F.3d 782, 784 [2d Cir.1999];  Covello v. Depository Trust Co., Local 153, 88 F.Supp.2d 59, 61-62 [E.D.N.Y.2000] ).   In the first amended complaint, the individual defendants were sued as representatives of the union.   Were we to consider the proposed second amended complaint, which for the first time named these defendants in their individual capacity, we would find no allegation of conduct by the individual defendants unrelated to their roles as union officials.

We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.