Department of Buildings v. Jones

New York Supreme Court

Department of Buildings v. Jones

24 Misc. 490

DecidedAugust 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Misc. 490 (Department of Buildings v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Buildings v. Jones, 24 Misc. 490 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Bookstaver, J.

From a careful examination of the papers submitted, I am of the opinion that the so-called “ Rapp system ” of floor support fully complies with the requirements of the building laws. The building in question is nearly completed, as far as its erection is concerned. The same system was allowed as to the lower stories, and I can see no reason why it should not be permitted as to the upper. Such being the situation an interim injunction should not be granted, especially where the consequences would be so serious to the defendants. I do not lose sight of the fact that the course of the defendants, as shown in plaintiff’s Exhibits A, B, O and D, in their efforts to secure the consent of the department to the kind of construction used has been somewhat devious and inconsistent; but, on the other hand, the course of the department has been seemingly contradictory in permitting the use of this system in apparently similar buildings, and especially in the first [492]*492four tiers of this building. I cannot conceive on what theory the first objections to the lower tiers were withdrawn and defendants allowed to use the system on four tiers, unless it was in the judgment of the department at least a substantial compliance with' the requirements of the building laws. ■ However, all these questions can, no doubt, be cleared up- at the trial, and this is an; additional reason why the preliminary injunction on the proofs. submitted should be denied.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Bookstaver, J.

From a careful examination of the papers submitted, I am of the opinion that the so-called “ Rapp system ” of floor support fully complies with the requirements of the building laws. The building in question is nearly completed, as far as its erection is concerned. The same system was allowed as to the lower stories, and I can see no reason why it should not be permitted as to the upper. Such being the situation an interim injunction should not be granted, especially where the consequences would be so serious to the defendants. I do not lose sight of the fact that the course of the defendants, as shown in plaintiff’s Exhibits A, B, O and D, in their efforts to secure the consent of the department to the kind of construction used has been somewhat devious and inconsistent; but, on the other hand, the course of the department has been seemingly contradictory in permitting the use of this system in apparently similar buildings, and especially in the first [492]*492four tiers of this building. I cannot conceive on what theory the first objections to the lower tiers were withdrawn and defendants allowed to use the system on four tiers, unless it was in the judgment of the department at least a substantial compliance with' the requirements of the building laws. ■ However, all these questions can, no doubt, be cleared up- at the trial, and this is an; additional reason why the preliminary injunction on the proofs. submitted should be denied.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Misc. 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-buildings-v-jones-nysupct-1898.