Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin
| Decision Date | 05 April 1955 |
| Citation | 141 N.Y.S.2d 186 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF OLD WESTBURY, v. Margaret C. HOBLIN, Seymour Mandel, Charles Buettner and 'Mary' Buettner, the name 'Mary' being fictitious, real first name being unknown to plaintiff, said person being the wife of the said Charles Buettner. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
J. Oakey McKnight, Mineola, for plaintiff.
David Friedman, Baldwin, for defendant.
This is a motion for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using premises owned by defendant Hoblin and leased to defendant Mandel in plaintiff village in violation of the zoning ordinances of said village, which prohibits the keeping of animals in a residence B zone, except as a permitted use when accessory to the principal use as a single family dwelling. The premises in question, which are leased by the defendant Mandel, are occupied by a stable in which Mandel has been keeping a number of horses. There is no single dwelling on the premises which might establish the use of the stable for such purpose as a permitted accessory use. In fact, on December 3, 1954, the defendant Mandel was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Old Westbury of the charge of violating the village ordinance prohibiting the boarding or keeping of horses. The papers do not indicate that any appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. Municipalities may enjoin the violation of its ordinances and there is no requirement that there be any showing of special damage or injury to the public. City of Utica v. Ortner, 256 App.Div. 1039, 10 N.Y.S.2d 729; City of Yonkers v. Horowitz, 222 App.Div. 297, 226 N.Y.S. 252. In view of the conviction of defendant Mandel for doing the very acts complained of here, I cannot but find that he is presently violating the local ordinances. Motion is accordingly granted. Proceed on notice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Harvard v. Maxant
...provision permitting accessory uses since there is no use made of the property except for the landing strip. Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin, 141 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y.Supr.Ct.). See Adley v. Paier, 148 Conn. 84, 86, 167 A.2d 449; Mahler v. Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Fair Lawn, 94 ......
-
Town of Poughkeepsie v. Hopper Plumbing & Heating Corp., 2
...729; City of New York v. Windsor Madison Corp., 14 Misc.2d 674 ; People ex rel. Bennett v. Laman, 277 N.Y. 368 ; Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin [Sup.], 141 N.Y.S.2d 186. 'Under the circumstances presented here, it would seem that the defendant Bank is not qualified to engage in plumbing ......
-
State v. Seich
...how admirably constructed (as this one is), is a proper accessory use under the township zoning ordinance. See Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin, 141 N.Y.S.2d 186 (Sup.Ct.1955); Pratt v. Building Inspector of Gloucester, 330 Mass. 344, 113 N.E.2d 816; Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct. In days not too long g......
-
City of Kingston v. Bank
...Madison Corp., 14 Misc.2d 674, 179 N.Y.S.2d 734; People ex rel. Bennett v. Laman, 277 N.Y. 368, 14 N.E.2d 439; Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin, Sup., 141 N.Y.S.2d 186). Under the circumstances presented here, it would seem that the defendant Bank is not qualified to engage in plumbing wor......