Opinion
Argued September 30, 1924
Decided November 25, 1924
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Frederick P. Close for appellant.
Clarence De Witt Rogers for respondent.
We do not pass upon the question of whether buildings, other than the one specified in the complaint, would be a violation of the zoning ordinance referred to. It is sufficient for this appeal to say the injunction should be limited to the building mentioned in the complaint. To this extent the town should be enjoined.
The judgment appealed from, therefore, should be modified as stated in this memorandum, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs to either party.
HISCOCK, Ch. J., CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE, ANDREWS and LEHMAN, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified.