Dellwood Dairy Co. v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dellwood Dairy Co. v. City of New Rochelle

7 A.D.2d 1026, 184 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9385

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 1026 (Dellwood Dairy Co. v. City of New Rochelle) 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

Dellwood Dairy Co. v. City of New Rochelle, 7 A.D.2d 1026, 184 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (1) from an order granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment striking out the answer and denying appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon striking out the answer. Respondent brought this action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the maintenance and operation by respondent of coin-operated milk-vending machines in residential apartment buildings in areas of the City of New Rochelle zoned for residential use do net violate the Zoning Law of the City of New Rochelle, and to enjoin appellants from interfering with respond[1027]*1027ent’s maintenance and operation of the milk-vending machines. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, respondent’s motion denied, appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment granted, and judgment vacated. By means of the coin-operated machines a commercial enterprise for profit is being conducted in that a sale of milk for money is thereby effected. That is not a use accessory to the residence use but is itself strictly a business Use. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the opinion of the Special Term.

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

Appeal (1) from an order granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment striking out the answer and denying appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon striking out the answer. Respondent brought this action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the maintenance and operation by respondent of coin-operated milk-vending machines in residential apartment buildings in areas of the City of New Rochelle zoned for residential use do net violate the Zoning Law of the City of New Rochelle, and to enjoin appellants from interfering with respond[1027]*1027ent’s maintenance and operation of the milk-vending machines. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, respondent’s motion denied, appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment granted, and judgment vacated. By means of the coin-operated machines a commercial enterprise for profit is being conducted in that a sale of milk for money is thereby effected. That is not a use accessory to the residence use but is itself strictly a business Use. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the opinion of the Special Term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 1026, 184 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dellwood-dairy-co-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1959.