City of New York v. Brenwill Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Brenwill Realty Corp.

23 A.D.2d 647, 257 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 647 (City of New York v. Brenwill Realty Corp.) 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

City of New York v. Brenwill Realty Corp., 23 A.D.2d 647, 257 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 7, 1964, to the extent appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and provision directing the ease be placed on the calendar for a day certain vacated. Upon an application for a temporary injunction, the rules specifically provide that an immediate trial can be ordered only on consent of the parties (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dept. Rules, part I, rule VIII, subd. [e] ; Landau V. Landau, 22 A D 2d 868; City of New York v. Wang, 23 A D 2d 481). The device of providing for an early trial should not be employed as a substitute for deciding the application for an injunction on its merits. Costs are allowed against respondent even though respondent did not urge this disposition at Special Term. Respondent could and should have consented to the modification requested and have had the order corrected at Special Term, thus overriding the necessity of an appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on December 7, 1964, to the extent appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and provision directing the ease be placed on the calendar for a day certain vacated. Upon an application for a temporary injunction, the rules specifically provide that an immediate trial can be ordered only on consent of the parties (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dept. Rules, part I, rule VIII, subd. [e] ; Landau V. Landau, 22 A D 2d 868; City of New York v. Wang, 23 A D 2d 481). The device of providing for an early trial should not be employed as a substitute for deciding the application for an injunction on its merits. Costs are allowed against respondent even though respondent did not urge this disposition at Special Term. Respondent could and should have consented to the modification requested and have had the order corrected at Special Term, thus overriding the necessity of an appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 647, 257 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-brenwill-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1965.