Katz v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Swift

54 A.D.2d 688, 387 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 688 (Katz v. Swift) 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. Swift, 54 A.D.2d 688, 387 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from pursuing their program to upgrade incinerators in private buildings until such standards are imposed upon buildings owned by the defendant city, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 31, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff is directed to notice this case for trial forthwith, and thereupon the case should be preferred for trial. The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action to which a defense upon documentary evidence has not been established. The claim of improper form is not a ground for dismissal (CPLR 103, subd [c]). Finally, we have considered the argument that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies and find it to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from pursuing their program to upgrade incinerators in private buildings until such standards are imposed upon buildings owned by the defendant city, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 31, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff is directed to notice this case for trial forthwith, and thereupon the case should be preferred for trial. The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action to which a defense upon documentary evidence has not been established. The claim of improper form is not a ground for dismissal (CPLR 103, subd [c]). Finally, we have considered the argument that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies and find it to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 688, 387 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-swift-nyappdiv-1976.