Hyperlawhypertext legal database Department of Buildings v. Jones 53 N.Y.S. 836

← Cases

Department of Buildings v. Jones

53 N.Y.S. 836 Court DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. JONES et al. English

Delivered by BOOKSTAVER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 836
(34 Misc. Rep. 490.)
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. JONES et al.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
August, 1898.)

Headnote

Preliminary Injunction—Municipal Building Regulations.
Where the building commissioners allowed the “Rapp System” of floor support to be used in the first four stories of a'building, and then compelled the use of the old-style arch for the succeeding stories, which order was complied with in the fifth and sixth stories, but disregarded in the four remaining, and the building was practically completed, a preliminary injunction should not be allowed, especially since the commissioners had allowed the Rapp system in apparently similar buildings.
Bill by the department of buildings of the city of New York against Louis M. Jones and others. Preliminary injunction denied.
Mayer & Gilbert (Julius M. Mayer and Joseph Fettretch, of counsel), for the motion.
John Whalen, Corp. Counsel, and Eugene Otterbourg, Asst. Corp, Counsel, opposed.

From a careful examination of the papers submitted, I am of the opinion that the so-called “Rapp System” of floor support fully complies with the requirements of the building laws. The building in question is nearly completed, as far as its erection is concerned. The same system was allowed as to the lower stories, and I can see no reason why it should not be permitted as to the upper. Such being the situation, an interim injunction should not be granted, especially where the consequences would be so serious to the defendants. I do not lose sight of the fact that the course of the defendants, as shown in Plaintiff’s Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in their efforts to secure the consent of the department to the kind of construction used, has' been somewhat devious and inconsistent; but, on the other hand, the course of the department has been seemingly contradictory in permitting the use of this system in apparently similar buildings, and especially in the first four tiers of this building. I cannot conceive on what theory the first objections to the lower tiers were withdrawn, and defendants allowed to use the system on four tiers, unless it was in the judgment of the department at least a substantial compliance with the requirements of the building laws. However, all these questions can, no doubt, be cleared up at the trial; and this is an additional reason why the preliminary injunction on the proofs submitted should be denied. Ordered accordingly.