This appeal involves separate action by two New York City law firms to recover damages resulting from theApril, 1980 transit strike. The first, begun in Queens County by Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer ("Burns Jackson"), is a class actionagainst the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (TWU), the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO (ATU), Local 100 of TWU, Locals 726 and 1056 of ATU and their respective officers. It alleges that the strike was intentional and in violation of both section 210 of the Civil Service Lawand of a preliminary injunction issued March 31, 1980 by the Supreme Court and seeks damages of $50,000,000 per day for each day of the strike. The complaint sets forth two causes of action: prima facie tort and public nuisance. The second action, begun in New York County by Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman ("Jackson, Lewis"), likewise alleges an intentional strike in violation of the statute and preliminary injunction. It was, however, brought only against the TWU and its Local 100, and officers of both, sought but $25,000 in damages, and did not ask class action status. It declared on six causes of action: for violation of the Taylor Law, prima facie tort, intentional interference with plaintiff's business, willful injury, conspiracy and breach of plaintiff's rights as third-party beneficiary of the contract between defendant unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA). By stipulation the New York County action was removed to Queens and joined with the Queens action for trial. Thereafter defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) to dismiss both actions for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied the motions, except as to the Jackson, Lewis contract cause of action (108 Misc 2d 458). On cross appeals to the Appellate Division, that court, in an extensive opinion, modified the order appealed from to dismiss both complaints in their entirety (88 AD2d 50). Both plaintiffs appeal to us as of right (CPLR 5601, subd [a]).We conclude (1) that the Taylor Law was neither intended to proscribe private damage actions by persons caused injury by a strike by public employees nor to establish a new private right of action for such damages, and (2) that the complaints fail to state a cause of action for (a) prima facie tort, (b) public nuisance, (c) intentional interference with business, or (d) breach of plaintiffs' rights as third-party beneficiary of defendants' contracts with NYCTA or MABSTOA. We, therefore, affirm.

1.BI is a category of database software that provides an interface to help users quickly and interactively scrutinize the results in a variety of dimensions of the data

2._________ is a category of applications and technologies for presenting and analyzing corporate and external data.

3.________ is a performance management tool that recapitulates an organization's performance from several standpoints on a single page.

4.Control system of an organisation has no influence over the?

5.Planning lays down the overall objective, strategies and polices for the total enterprise is?

6.Contingent plan to meet environmental pressures is?

7.SSIS provides a powerful, extensible platform for integrating data from various sources

8.The BIDS paradigm for developing reports is based on the concept of distributed queries

9.Resource management is limited to the SQL Server Database Engine

10.Business intelligence equips enterprises to gain business advantage from data