Warehousemen's Ass'n of the Port of New York, Inc. v. Cosgrove

150 N.E. 563, 241 N.Y. 580, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 666
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 8, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 150 N.E. 563 (Warehousemen's Ass'n of the Port of New York, Inc. v. Cosgrove) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Warehousemen's Ass'n of the Port of New York, Inc. v. Cosgrove, 150 N.E. 563, 241 N.Y. 580, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 666 (N.Y. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is admitted that. Pan-American Wharfage Co., Inc., and Pan-American Terminal and Dock Company are maintaining warehouses on the double deck piers on Staten Island which they lease from the city. The decision below is that as matter of law they have the right to maintain such warehouses. The lessee agrees to abide by the laws of the State of New York respecting the use of the piers. The Greater New York charter, section 846, prohibits the maintenance on any pier of a storehouse. The use of the piers for warehousing is, therefore, an illegal use. It is the duty of the com *581 missioner of docks to enforce the terms of the permit. Physically, the use does not encumber the pier or interfere with its free use. The duty of the commissioner of docks is to notify the lessees to cease the illegal use. The respondent’s brief contends that it is not his clear legal duty forthwith to stop the illegal use. But the decision below is to the effect that the use is legal. Doubtless the court has some discretion in the matter. The remedy of mandamus may be withheld where the enforcement of a strict legal right would work unnecessary hardship.

Order should be reversed and the proceeding remitted for consideration on the merits, with costs to appellant.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

State Commission of Correction v. Ruffo
157 A.D.2d 987 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Izzo v. Kirby
56 Misc. 2d 131 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Rockwell v. Morris
12 A.D.2d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Moriarty v. McKenzie
185 Misc. 87 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Luboil Heat & Power Corp. v. Pleydell
178 Misc. 562 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Wolf v. Valentine
178 Misc. 308 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Matter of Coombs v. Edwards
21 N.E.2d 353 (New York Court of Appeals, 1939)
Matter of Andresen v. Rice
14 N.E.2d 65 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Hurley v. National Bank of Middletown
252 A.D. 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Matter of Smidt v. McKee
186 N.E. 869 (New York Court of Appeals, 1933)
Warehousemen's Ass'n v. Cosgrove
227 A.D. 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
City of Victor v. Halstead
271 P. 185 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1928)
State Ex Rel. Phillips v. Neisen
217 N.W. 371 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)
Warehousemen's Ass'n of Port of New York, Inc. v. Cosgrove
152 N.E. 399 (New York Court of Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 N.E. 563, 241 N.Y. 580, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warehousemens-assn-of-the-port-of-new-york-inc-v-cosgrove-ny-1925.