Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney
| Decision Date | 15 July 1931 |
| Citation | 177 N.E. 420,257 N.Y. 200 |
| Parties | TRIANGLE MINT CORPORATION v. MULROONEY, Commissioner of Police, et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the Triangle Mint Corporation against Edward P. Mulrooney, as Commissioner of Police of the Police Department of the City of New York, and members of said department. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (232 App. Div. 783, 248 N. Y. S. 880) reversing on the law and facts an order of Special Term in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment of Appellate Division affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., and Abraham R. Kartzman, both of Brooklyn, for appellant.
Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Joseph P. Reilly, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents.
An equity court should exercise its jurisdiction to restrain the police from enforcing a criminal statute, the enforcement of which threatens property damage, only in cases where a clear legal right to that relief is established. The record in this case does not establish such a clear legal right. For that reason the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Court of General Sessions of County of New York
...to grant the remedy is a proper exercise of discretion. But a clear right to the relief should be established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N.Y. 200, 201, 177 N.E. 420; People v. Canal Board, 55 N.Y. 390, 394-395). This, I believe, has not been STEUER, J., concurs. 1 There is a pre......
-
Reed v. Littleton
...Novelty Co. v. Sunderman, 266 N.Y. 32, 193 N.E. 541) where a clear legal right to the relief is established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N.Y. 200, 177 N.E. 420). One reason for such a rule is the desire to preserve the separation of governmental powers. Cf. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 ......
-
Snap 'N' Pops, Inc. v. Dillon
...Novelty Co. v. Sunderman, 266 N.Y. 32, 193 N.E. 541) where a clear legal right to the relief is established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N.Y. 200, 177 N.E. 420). "There is no need nor necessity for a resort to a trial in Equity to determine whether a scheme or device is gambling w......
-
Baris Shoe Co., Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay
...Novelty Co. v. Sunderman, 266 N.Y. 32, 193 N.E. 541) where a clear legal right to the relief is established (Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney, 257 N.Y. 200, 177 N.E. 420)" (Snap 'N' Pops v. Dillon, 66 A.D.2d 219, 220-221, 412 N.Y.S.2d 646) [emphasis in Here, the use of property in an "H" zo......