From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Seidenberg v. Burwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

March, 1932.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ.


Order dated November 18, 1930, dismissing petitioners' petition and alternative mandamus order, and order dated April 30, 1931, denying petitioners' motion to vacate said order of November 18, 1930, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The evidence justified the court below in directing the jury to find that no certificate to use the property for business purposes was issued. The use of the property for business purposes without a certificate of occupancy for such purpose was illegal.


Summaries of

Matter of Seidenberg v. Burwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Matter of Seidenberg v. Burwell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of HUGO SEIDENBERG and ROSE SEIDENBERG…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1932

Citations

235 App. Div. 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Citing Cases

City of N.Y. v. Victory Van Lines

Thus, plaintiffs contend that because the storage of trucks was "unlawful" at the time of the 1961 rezoning,…