Opoliner v. Joint Queensview Housing Enterprise, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Opoliner v. Joint Queensview Housing Enterprise, Inc.

11 A.D.2d 1076, 206 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1076 (Opoliner v. Joint Queensview Housing Enterprise, Inc.) 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

Opoliner v. Joint Queensview Housing Enterprise, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 1076, 206 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a declaratory judgment and incidental relief, brought by stockholder-tenants in a co-operative housing development against its corporate owner and operator, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 27, 1960, as denies its cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice dismissing the complaint, and as grants planitiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction restraining defendant: (a) from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession of washing machines in their apartments; (b) from terminating their leases because of their possession of the washing machines; and (e) from instituting summary proceedings against them because of their possession of such machines. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, a question of fact exists with respect to the reasonableness of the defendant’s rule prohibiting entirely the use or possession of washing machines in plaintiffs’ apartments, especially since such rule was adopted some tune after defendant had permitted washing machines to he purchased, installed and used by, a number of its other tenants in the same housing development (cf. Thousand Is. Park Assn. v. Tucker, 173 X. Y. 203, 212, 213). Under the circumstances disclosed, we believe it was a proper exercise of discretion to grant the temporary injunction (cf. Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 X. Y. 270). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. •

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

— In an action for a declaratory judgment and incidental relief, brought by stockholder-tenants in a co-operative housing development against its corporate owner and operator, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 27, 1960, as denies its cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice dismissing the complaint, and as grants planitiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction restraining defendant: (a) from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession of washing machines in their apartments; (b) from terminating their leases because of their possession of the washing machines; and (e) from instituting summary proceedings against them because of their possession of such machines. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, a question of fact exists with respect to the reasonableness of the defendant’s rule prohibiting entirely the use or possession of washing machines in plaintiffs’ apartments, especially since such rule was adopted some tune after defendant had permitted washing machines to he purchased, installed and used by, a number of its other tenants in the same housing development (cf. Thousand Is. Park Assn. v. Tucker, 173 X. Y. 203, 212, 213). Under the circumstances disclosed, we believe it was a proper exercise of discretion to grant the temporary injunction (cf. Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 X. Y. 270). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1076, 206 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opoliner-v-joint-queensview-housing-enterprise-inc-nyappdiv-1960.