Katz v. O'Keefe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. O'Keefe

19 A.D.2d 529

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

DecidedMay 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 529 (Katz v. O'Keefe) 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

Katz v. O'Keefe, 19 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 8, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and summary judgment granted to defendant-appellant. In this suit to enjoin the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate from offering for lease certain lands acquired by the city in condemnation, plaintiff, suing as a taxpayer, moved for a temporary injunction. Defendant cross-moved for a judgment under rules 106, 112 and 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The court denied the application for an injunction. On the cross motion the court determined that the complaint stated a cause of action and that there were triable issues. The gravamen of the action is that the retention of the properties is so clearly contrary to the interests of the city that the act of the responsible official amounts to waste. The affidavit fails to show this. Short of a prima facie showing to this effect, there is no triable issue (Kaskél v. Impellitteri, 306 N. Y. 73). Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on May 8, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and summary judgment granted to defendant-appellant. In this suit to enjoin the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate from offering for lease certain lands acquired by the city in condemnation, plaintiff, suing as a taxpayer, moved for a temporary injunction. Defendant cross-moved for a judgment under rules 106, 112 and 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The court denied the application for an injunction. On the cross motion the court determined that the complaint stated a cause of action and that there were triable issues. The gravamen of the action is that the retention of the properties is so clearly contrary to the interests of the city that the act of the responsible official amounts to waste. The affidavit fails to show this. Short of a prima facie showing to this effect, there is no triable issue (Kaskél v. Impellitteri, 306 N. Y. 73). Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-okeefe-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack