Summary
In Triangle Mint Corp. v. Mulrooney (257 N.Y. 200, 201) the court said: "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."
Summary of this case from Lyttle v. ValentineOpinion
Argued June 15, 1931
Decided July 15, 1931
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., and Abraham R. Kartzman for appellant. Arthur J.W. Hilly, Corporation Counsel ( Joseph P. Reilly 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.
CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.