Case Name: M. Kraus & Bros, Inc., Respondent, v. William Bergman, as President of Manhattan Window Cleaners Union, an Unincorporated Association, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1956-11-30
Citations: 2 N.Y.2d 155
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. Kraus & Bros, Inc., Respondent, v. William Bergman, as President of Manhattan Window Cleaners Union, an Unincorporated Association, et al., Appellants.
Judges: Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel and Burke, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Van Voorhis, J., dissents and votes to affirm.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 155–157

Head Matter:
M. Kraus & Bros, Inc., Respondent, v. William Bergman, as President of Manhattan Window Cleaners Union, an Unincorporated Association, et al., Appellants.
Argued October 3, 1956;
decided November 30, 1956.
Morris Bauman for appellants.
Frederic S. Berman for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment appealed from should be reversed for, whether or not this be an action in equity involving a ' ' labor dispute " and requiring findings of fact under section 876-a (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Civil Practice'Act, there is neither proof nor finding of damage caused by the picketing (see Kane v. Walsh, 295 N. Y. 198; Wood v. O'Grady, 307 N. Y. 532). However, in view of the method of trial adopted by court and counsel for the presentation of proof, it may be that this failure of proof was inadvertent only. Therefore, we grant a new trial.
The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of Special Term should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel and Burke, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Van Voorhis, J., dissents and votes to affirm.
Judgments reversed, etc.