Klein v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Weber

45 A.D.2d 759, 356 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4650

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

DecidedJune 24, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 759 (Klein v. Weber) 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

Klein v. Weber, 45 A.D.2d 759, 356 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injunctive and other relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 9, 1973 and entered in Putnam County, which granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the preliminary injunction is applicable only with respect to the swimming pool and the facilities reasonably attendant thereon, namely, the kiddy pool, the parking lot and the bathhouses. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. On the authority of Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Assn. v. Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank (278 N. Y. 248) and Nicholson v. 300 Broadway Realty Corp. (7 N Y 2d 240), the case for granting plaintiffs’ request for a permanent mandatory injunction to allow them the use of a certain swimming pool is almost indisputable. However, since the covenant in question is with respect to the pool only, the order under review, which appears to compel defendant to give plaintiffs access to the entire recreational facility, was overbroad. Plaintiffs should be afforded access only to the pool and the facilities reasonably attendant to the pool, namely, the kiddy pool, the parking lot and the bathhouses. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for injunctive and other relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 9, 1973 and entered in Putnam County, which granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the preliminary injunction is applicable only with respect to the swimming pool and the facilities reasonably attendant thereon, namely, the kiddy pool, the parking lot and the bathhouses. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. On the authority of Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Assn. v. Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank (278 N. Y. 248) and Nicholson v. 300 Broadway Realty Corp. (7 N Y 2d 240), the case for granting plaintiffs’ request for a permanent mandatory injunction to allow them the use of a certain swimming pool is almost indisputable. However, since the covenant in question is with respect to the pool only, the order under review, which appears to compel defendant to give plaintiffs access to the entire recreational facility, was overbroad. Plaintiffs should be afforded access only to the pool and the facilities reasonably attendant to the pool, namely, the kiddy pool, the parking lot and the bathhouses. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 759, 356 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-weber-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack