Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MTA BUS COMPANY, respondent, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, etc., et al., defendants, Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, etc., appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the prospective violation of the Taylor Law, the defendant Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated May 12, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated April 19, 2006, granting, after a nonjury trial, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to suspend its right to deduct union dues from the paychecks of its members, and upon an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated December 20, 2005, inter alia, adjudging it guilty of contempt of court and, among other things, suspended its right to collect union dues from its members by means of a deduction from the paychecks of its members for an indefinite period of time.
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated April 19, 2006, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment dated May 12, 2006 (see CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order and judgment dated May 12, 2006, is affirmed, with costs.
There was no impropriety in the manner and timing of the plaintiff's motion for an order forfeiting the right of the defendant Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Local 100), to collect the dues of those of its members employed by the plaintiff by means of a payroll deduction (see New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 37 A.D.3d 679, 832 N.Y.S.2d 209, [decided herewith]; L. 1986, ch. 929, § 34; Civil Service Law § 210[2][f] ). Nor did the forfeiture ordered by the Supreme Court constitute punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy clauses of the United States or New York State Constitutions (see U.S. Const. Amend. V; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6; see New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, supra; Matter of Barnes v. Tofany, 27 N.Y.2d 74, 77-78, 313 N.Y.S.2d 690, 261 N.E.2d 617; People v. Haishun, 238 A.D.2d 521, 522, 656 N.Y.S.2d 660; Matter of Erdos v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 105 A.D.2d 504, 505, 481 N.Y.S.2d 457).
Local 100's remaining contentions are without merit (see New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, supra; New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 35 A.D.3d 73, 822 N.Y.S.2d 579; New York City Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 726, 33 A.D.3d 595, 822 N.Y.S.2d 594).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)