From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seidman Sons v. Tilrose Camp Operating Co.

Supreme Court, Queens County
Jul 8, 1932
153 Misc. 510 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)

Opinion

July 8, 1932.

Tobias A. Keppler, for the plaintiff.

Pettit Pettit, for the defendants.



This action is brought for an injunction restraining the defendants from operating, and permitting to be operated, an open-air parking space for more than five cars, in a restricted district.

The plaintiff is the owner of a licensed garage diagonally across the street from the premises of the defendants, and its business is curtailed and its finances impaired by defendants' operation.

The plaintiff is such an interested party as entitles it to prosecute this action. ( Rice v. Van Vranken, 255 N.Y. 541.) The provisions of article 2, section 4, subdivisions 15 and 29 of the Amended Building Zone Resolution are applicable to defendants' situation.

The plaintiff may have judgment enjoining the defendants from the operation of their premises as an open-air parking space.


Summaries of

Seidman Sons v. Tilrose Camp Operating Co.

Supreme Court, Queens County
Jul 8, 1932
153 Misc. 510 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
Case details for

Seidman Sons v. Tilrose Camp Operating Co.

Case Details

Full title:SEIDMAN SONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. TILROSE CAMP OPERATING CO., INC., and…

Court:Supreme Court, Queens County

Date published: Jul 8, 1932

Citations

153 Misc. 510 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
274 N.Y.S. 606