Arlen Two Co. v. Straus Broadcasting Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arlen Two Co. v. Straus Broadcasting Group, Inc.

46 A.D.2d 763, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 763 (Arlen Two Co. v. Straus Broadcasting Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arlen Two Co. v. Straus Broadcasting Group, Inc., 46 A.D.2d 763, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for a stay of the temporary injunction contained in the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 20, 1974, granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal from said order. There does not seem to be a clear right to the injunction. Moreover the lease provision upon which Special Term acted is not applicable to the situation presented. The lease must be construed in a manner consonant with the purposes of the tenant broadcasting corporation which operates under requirements of Federal law mandating freedom of communication of all parties regardless of what controversial doctrines or theories they advocate. Furthermore, on its face, the restraining order collides with the constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Concur — McGivern, P. J., Nunez, Lupiano and-Steuer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion for a stay of the temporary injunction contained in the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 20, 1974, granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal from said order. There does not seem to be a clear right to the injunction. Moreover the lease provision upon which Special Term acted is not applicable to the situation presented. The lease must be construed in a manner consonant with the purposes of the tenant broadcasting corporation which operates under requirements of Federal law mandating freedom of communication of all parties regardless of what controversial doctrines or theories they advocate. Furthermore, on its face, the restraining order collides with the constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Concur — McGivern, P. J., Nunez, Lupiano and-Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 763, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlen-two-co-v-straus-broadcasting-group-inc-nyappdiv-1974.