New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-13
NOONAN WILLING TO BET.
THE ALDERMAN SURE OF HIS PULL
WITH THE BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT.

SUPERINTENDENT BRADY. IT is CHARGED. HAD
THE MAN WHO SERVED LEGAL PAPERS on
HIM THROWN FROM HIS OFFICE.
Abram King in the Supreme Court, Chambers.
yesterday. before Judge Ingraham, asserted that
because of political interference on the part or
Vice President NOonan. OF the Board Of Alder
men. his client Isaac Goodsten. had been unable
to get a permit to make alterations or a building
at No. l49 East Broadway on which he held
lease for ten years. The case came before the
court upon an application made by M King
for a peremptory mandamus directing Superin-
tendent Brady of the Buildings Department. to
issue permit 10 his client for making the con-
templated alterations on the building. for which
the plans and specifications had been filed in
the department for some time past II was also
alleged that Brady had the man thrown from his
Office who served the papers on him.
1t was asserted in an affidavit made by MIR.
Goodstein that after his plans had been sub
rnitted to the department they were recommended
for approval. The building is In East Broadway.
between Rutgers and Pike SITS. The contem-
plated alterations include changes for q barroom
on the store floor. clr1rooms on the second floor
and flats above that. Mr. GOodstein says that
after the plans had been substantially approved
by the department. Alderman Noonan went 10
the office OF the Buildings Department and had
them rejected. Mr. Goodstein says that Al
derman Noonan openly declared that the altera-
lions would never be allowed by the Buildings De-
partment. and In the presence Of several Wit
nesses he offered to bet $500 that they would be
rejected
lie further declared that the plans were re-
jected after they had been marked approved
by the Buildings Department and the word APP
proved" had been scratched out.
Affdavits presented by superintendent
Brady and several of his assistants in opposi-
ton To the motion. Mr. Brady himself asserted
that he regretted 1t had been found neces-
sary to go outside OF the issue and to bring In
outside matters and persons not connected with
the department and over whom he had no con-
troll. He denied the statements made by Mr..
Goodstein and said that he administered the
functions Of his office without fear or FAVOR 10
any one and in accordance with the law.
He admitted that Alderman Noonan had called
upon him in reference to the plans OF the bulid-
ing referred to- and informed MN that ne WdS
there as the representative of property-ownerS
in the immediate vicinity OF the building VINO
wanted TO protest against the proposed al
1erations. because If made. they would take up
the whole lot upon which the bulldlns was
erected and would prove detrimental To thcl
property. He therefore requested That the de-
partment investigate the matte: re asseI. @u
that the plans had been disapproVed because
they did not come up to the requirements OF lhe
law relative to buildings. neither did they in
respect to light and ventilation. The o'her am
dayits were Of a corrobOratiVe nature.
Goodstein charges that the person who served
the papers on Brady thrown out OF ms
office by order of Brady who said: Throw ms
fellow and his orders out. Goodstein says thdI
since the proceeding was begun repeated thTHd'S
have beer made against him. Judge lngrahaM
reserved his decision, but gave an opportunity To
the reldtOT 10 answer the afnddNlts % lHe '"I'cI
intendent Of buildings.
Noonan's interest IN the affair is due TO ms
owning a neigh5orng barrocm Therefore IL was
that Goodsten although he altered ms P'dnS
three times u meet the objections Of the depart
ment was unable to get his permit The Noonan
people have put gate in All old fence. through
which children c'n inter scnooI mus we!
hone m shut our GGodstein under the law for
bidding barrooms within POO feet Of schools or
churches.