Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992

Mellon v. Benker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 7, 1992

186 A.D.2d 1020

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Mamorella v. Derkasch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Kleinmann v. Bach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Anderson v. American Federation of Teachers (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 2017)
Rosioreanu v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Jenkins v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Robinson v. Barone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Calkins v. Police Benevolent Ass'n of New York State Troopers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Martin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (District Court, N.D. New York 2000)
Ahrens v. New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred *1021in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint in this action for breach of defendants’ duty of fair representation. We agree.

“To sustain a cause of action for breach of the duty of fair representation there must be substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct, or evidence of discrimination that is intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives” (Badman v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 91 AD2d 858). The fact that the union was guilty of mistake, negligence or lack of competence does not suffice for such a claim (Trainosky v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 130 AD2d 827). Moreover, a union has discretion with respect to processing grievances, and the mere failure on the part of the union to process a grievance is not per se a violation of its duty of fair representation (Symanski v East Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 117 AD2d 18, 21).

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff has submitted only the conclusory and self-serving affidavits of herself and her attorney; she has provided no evidence of defendants’ bad faith, discrimination or arbitrariness. Plaintiff’s showing is insufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Trainosky v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., supra; Badman v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.