From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duryea v. Auerbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1914
164 App. Div. 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)

Opinion

October 16, 1914.

David M. Neuberger, for the appellant.

Henry A. Uterhart [ Alfred M. Schaffer with him on the brief], for the respondent.


This appeal is from an order of the Special Term that grants an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendants from selling malt or spirituous liquors on certain premises in violation of covenants contained in a deed executed in 1880 and continued in certain mesne conveyances. The defenses are that such covenants have become inoperative, unenforcible and obsolete by reason of the radical changes of the locality and neighborhood and of the conditions thereof, and waiver. The record indicates that this invocation of the doctrine of Trustees of Columbia College v. Thacher ( 87 N.Y. 311) will be the principal defense. Such an issue cannot well be tried by affidavits and should not be unless cogent circumstances almost compel such course. The general rule in this court is not to disturb this kind of an order. ( Smith Sons Carpet Co. v. Ball, 137 App. Div. 101; Heim v. N.Y. Stock Exchange, 138 id. 96.) On the other hand, the plaintiff, having thus halted the defendants, should not be allowed to rest. And if he is not ready for trial at the first possible moment, the defendants should be heard for a vacation of this order, which is now affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

JENKS, P.J., THOMAS, CARR, STAPLETON and PUTNAM, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Duryea v. Auerbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1914
164 App. Div. 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)
Case details for

Duryea v. Auerbach

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL P. DURYEA, Respondent, v . MEYER AUERBACH, Defendant, Impleaded…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 16, 1914

Citations

164 App. Div. 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)
149 N.Y.S. 432

Citing Cases

Yellow Cab Mfg. Co. v. Checker Cab Mfg. Corp.

In all fairness, it was incumbent upon the defendants, in securing the order pendente lite restraining the…

Morrell v. Brooklyn Borough Gas Co. No. 1

Ordinarily this court does not review the discretion of the Special Term in granting or refusing an…