United States v. Kunin

• Decision Date: 08 March 1945
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1355.
• Citation: 59 F. Supp. 506
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. KUNIN et al.

59 F. Supp. 506

UNITED STATES v. KUNIN et al.

Civil Action No. 1355.

District Court, D. Connecticut.

March 8, 1945.

Thomas J. Birmingham, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Robert P. Butler, U. S. Atty., both of Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.

Joseph P. Cooney, of Hartford, Conn., for defendants.

SMITH, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on the application of the War Production Board for a temporary injunction prohibiting the continuance of construction upon premises leased by the defendants, in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The defendants, holding two adjacent buildings on long-term leases, determined to utilize a store in one of the buildings upon its vacation by a former tenant, to increase the space in a store in the adjoining building owned and operated by the defendants. In order to accomplish this, two things were thought necessary or desirable: (1) Reconstruction of the store front to close the entrance used by the former tenant and replace it with show windows; and (2) the piercing of the party wall between the two buildings to provide communication between the store already operated by the defendants and the store in the adjacent building.

The defendants were advised by a competent architect that the two buildings, in separate ownership, were separate units in the meaning of Conservation Order L-41, so that the reconstruction of the store front and the reconstruction of the party wall to create the openings could be considered as separate jobs on separate units and required no permission from the War Production Board if neither job individually involved an estimated expenditure of more than $200. The defendants thereupon obtained bids on the work of less than $200 on each portion of it, and commenced the reconstruction. The War Production Board warned them that they might be in violation of the Order, advised them to stop construction pending further investigation, and suggested that an application for approval of the reconstruction of the store front and of the party wall be made as one job, which was done. Some five or six days later, however, the defendants, not having heard from the application, continued with the work until at least two days following receipt of notice of the denial of the application and the sending of a letter by the defendants appealing from the decision denying the application.

The principal question in the case is the interpretation of Conservation Order L-41 to determine whether the reconstruction of the store front and the reconstruction of the party wall are to be considered a job upon one or more stores or one or more units. A unit includes any group of buildings near to each other which serve the same general purpose or closely related purposes, and so, here, the two buildings, while used by the defendants as parts of one store, or at least those portions of the buildings so used, must be considered...