In re Enid Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Enid Holding Corp.

255 A.D. 1020, 8 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6284

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 1020 (In re Enid Holding 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

In re Enid Holding Corp., 255 A.D. 1020, 8 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting application of petitioners for leave to intervene, but upon terms and conditions, unanimously affirmed, 'with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. The permit was granted to appellants by the board of standards and appeals upon certain terms and conditions, and such permit was not to be exercised until those terms and conditions had been fulfilled. In failing to fulfill the terms and conditions and yet using the premises as if permitted to do so unconditionally, the appellants are violating the zoning ordinance. Under such circumstances, when the same appellants sought the favor of the court in petitioning for leave to intervene, the court, empowered to impose such terms “ as justice requires,” properly imposed terms compelling appellants to obey the law as a prerequisite to intervention. If the petitioners have not already complied with the terms of the order, their time to do so is extended until ten days after the entry of the order hereon. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

Order granting application of petitioners for leave to intervene, but upon terms and conditions, unanimously affirmed, 'with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. The permit was granted to appellants by the board of standards and appeals upon certain terms and conditions, and such permit was not to be exercised until those terms and conditions had been fulfilled. In failing to fulfill the terms and conditions and yet using the premises as if permitted to do so unconditionally, the appellants are violating the zoning ordinance. Under such circumstances, when the same appellants sought the favor of the court in petitioning for leave to intervene, the court, empowered to impose such terms “ as justice requires,” properly imposed terms compelling appellants to obey the law as a prerequisite to intervention. If the petitioners have not already complied with the terms of the order, their time to do so is extended until ten days after the entry of the order hereon. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 1020, 8 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-enid-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1938.