Henry Modell & Co. v. Regency-Lexington Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry Modell & Co. v. Regency-Lexington Partners

66 A.D.2d 756, 411 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14029

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 756 (Henry Modell & Co. v. Regency-Lexington Partners) 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

Henry Modell & Co. v. Regency-Lexington Partners, 66 A.D.2d 756, 411 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 30, 1978, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to deny the motion for a temporary injunction, without costs or disbursements. We appreciate that the temporary injunction granted at Special Term represented a conscientious effort to permit the renovation and reconstruction of the former Hotel Commodore to proceed without causing severe economic damage to retail tenants and without creating a danger to pedestrians. Unfortunately, the injunctive relief appears to require the defendants to violate a valid provision of the New York City Building Code. We know of no authority permitting a court to require such a violation. In Reed v Littleton (275 NY 150, 153), the Court of Appeals held that a court of equity "will not ordinarily intervene to enjoin enforcement of the law * * * unless under proper circumstances there would be irreparable injury, and the sole question involved is one of law (Mills Novelty Co. v. Sunderman, 266 N. Y. 32) where a clear legal right to the relief is established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N. Y. 200).” No issue of law is here presented since there is no challenge to the validity of the provision of the building code, violation of which was required by the injunction issued at Special Term. Concur—Silverman, Fein and Sandler, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 30, 1978, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to deny the motion for a temporary injunction, without costs or disbursements. We appreciate that the temporary injunction granted at Special Term represented a conscientious effort to permit the renovation and reconstruction of the former Hotel Commodore to proceed without causing severe economic damage to retail tenants and without creating a danger to pedestrians. Unfortunately, the injunctive relief appears to require the defendants to violate a valid provision of the New York City Building Code. We know of no authority permitting a court to require such a violation. In Reed v Littleton (275 NY 150, 153), the Court of Appeals held that a court of equity "will not ordinarily intervene to enjoin enforcement of the law * * * unless under proper circumstances there would be irreparable injury, and the sole question involved is one of law (Mills Novelty Co. v. Sunderman, 266 N. Y. 32) where a clear legal right to the relief is established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N. Y. 200).” No issue of law is here presented since there is no challenge to the validity of the provision of the building code, violation of which was required by the injunction issued at Special Term. Concur—Silverman, Fein and Sandler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 756, 411 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-modell-co-v-regency-lexington-partners-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack