Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
New York Court of Appeals, 1938

Canepa v. "John Doe"

Canepa v. "John Doe"
New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 18, 1938 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
12 N.E.2d 790; 277 N.Y. 52; 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 952 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Louis Waldman and David I. Ashe for appellants. Sidney O. Raphael for respondent.

Canepa v. "John Doe"

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The complaint sufficiently alleges that the picketing by the defendants is part of a true secondary . boycott and an unlawful interference with the business *55 of the plaintiff (Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N. Y. 281.) Whether or not the case is one “ involving or growing out of a labor dispute ” as these terms are defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, the complaint is sufficient.

The order should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is not answered and the second question is answered in the affirmative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hitbbs, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.