Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert 237 N.Y. 580

← Cases

People ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert

237 N.Y. 580 Court N.Y. Decision date 1924-02-19 English

Contents

Majority

p. 580
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rosevale Realty Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Albert E. Kleinert, as Superintendent of the Bureau of Buildings of the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Respondent. Midwood Manor Association et al., Intervenors, Respondents.

Headnote

New York city — mandamus to compel superintendent of buildings to . approve plans for erection of tenement house properly denied.
People ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert, 207 App. Div. 828 , affirmed.
(Argued January 9, 1924;
decided February 19, 1924.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 19, 1923, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term, denying a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the defendant, as superintendent of buildings of the borough of Brooklyn, to forthwith approve certain plans on file in his department, which had been previously approved by the tenement house department, and to issue to the plaintiff a permit for the erection of the building described in such plans as a forty-family apartment house. The intervenor Midwood Manor Association is an organization of property owners in the vicinity of the premises upon which plaintiff proposes to build, and the intervenor Pauliné R. Kalvin is the owner of property near the same premises. These intervenors oppose the application of the plaintiff on, the ground that the proposed building would cause them to suffer irreparable loss and would be contrary to the general welfare of the community and would endanger the health and safety of those who live therein. (See 236 N. Y. 605 .)
p. 581
Benjamin Reass, I. Henry Kutz, Hugo Hirsh and Emanuel Newman for appellant.
George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel (Charles J Druhan and Joseph P. Reilly of counsel), for respondent.
James Marshall and J. George Silberstein for intervenors, respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.; Cardozo and Lehman, JJ., dissent on ground that appellant is within the protection of sections 23 and 24 of the Building Zone resolution and express no opinion upon the other questions suggested in the appellant's argument. Not voting: Pound, J.