People ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert

• Decision Date: 19 February 1924
• Citation: 237 N.Y. 580,143 N.E. 750
• Parties: 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., Interveners, Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

237 N.Y. 580

143 N.E. 750

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., Interveners, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 19, 1924.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (207 App. Div. 828,201 N. Y. Supp. 935), entered October 19, 1923, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term, denying a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the 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 40-family apartment house. The intervener Midwood Manor Association is an organization of property owners in the vicinity of the premises upon which plaintiff proposes to build, and the intervener Pauline R. Kalvin is the owner of property near the same premises. These interveners 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, 142 N. E. 302.Benjamin Reass, of New York City, I. Henry Kutz, of Syracuse, and Hugo Hirsh and Emanuel Newman, both of New York City, for appellant.

George P. Nicholson, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Charles J. Druhan, of New York City, and Joseph P. Reilly, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

James Marshall and J. George Silberstein, both of New York City, for interveners, respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and McLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

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.

POUND, J., not voting.