Brigham Park Cooperative Apartments Section No. 2, Inc. v. Krauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brigham Park Cooperative Apartments Section No. 2, Inc. v. Krauss

28 A.D.2d 846, 282 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 5, 1967·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

No opinion. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Munder and Nolan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, with the following memorandum: I think there is a triable issue as to whether the rule of the Board of Directors of plaintiff co-operative housing corporation against dogs being kept in the premises is being enforced in a consciously discriminatory manner by applying it to defendant while not applying it to seven other tenants, including two officers of the corporation. If defendant can so establish, he would seem to have good defenses (a) on constitutional grounds of due process and equal protection of the laws (U. S. Const, 14th Amdt.; N. Y. Const., art. I, § 11; cf. People v. Friedman, 302 N. Y. 75, 81); (b) on the equity principle that a plaintiff must come into court with clean hands; and (c) on a principle analogous to the one applied in the Fair Trade Act area, that enforcement of a Fair Trade agreement is barred by a showing that it was abandoned by the manufacturer, or that the manufacturer “is using it inequitably, to favor some retailers against others ” (cf. National Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. Macy & Co., 23 AD 2d 51).

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

No opinion. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Munder and Nolan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, with the following memorandum: I think there is a triable issue as to whether the rule of the Board of Directors of plaintiff co-operative housing corporation against dogs being kept in the premises is being enforced in a consciously discriminatory manner by applying it to defendant while not applying it to seven other tenants, including two officers of the corporation. If defendant can so establish, he would seem to have good defenses (a) on constitutional grounds of due process and equal protection of the laws (U. S. Const, 14th Amdt.; N. Y. Const., art. I, § 11; cf. People v. Friedman, 302 N. Y. 75, 81); (b) on the equity principle that a plaintiff must come into court with clean hands; and (c) on a principle analogous to the one applied in the Fair Trade Act area, that enforcement of a Fair Trade agreement is barred by a showing that it was abandoned by the manufacturer, or that the manufacturer “is using it inequitably, to favor some retailers against others ” (cf. National Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. Macy & Co., 23 AD 2d 51).

Brigham Park Cooperative Apartments Section No. 2, Inc. v. Krauss, 28 A.D.2d 846, 282 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

28 A.D.2d 846 (Brigham Park Cooperative Apartments Section No. 2, Inc. v. Krauss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related