New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-13
DANES LAW HOTELS ATTACKED.
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TRIES to CLOSE
THOSE NOT FIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THOSE NOT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TEMPORARILY STAYED.
Julius NJ MAYER counsel to the Building Depart
ment applied TO Justice Pryor, In the supreme
Court Yesterday for injunction pending the triai
of the suit brought by the Department OF buiidihes
against Mary A. King and Charles Busheer the
owner and lessee respectively of the Raines law
hotel at No 3O3 First-ave, restraining them or any
oher persons from using occupying the premises
as a hotel. The injunction was asked for on the
ground that the requirements of Chapter 4O OF the
Laws of 1892 relating to the construction OF hotels
had not been complied with. and 1t was animated
that should the Building Department be successful
in it's suit nearly every Ranes law hotel in this
city woull lie closed whose owners were not prepared
to incur immense expense in carrying out the alter
ations necessary to comply with the requirements
of the act.
According 10 an affidavit made by Superintendent
Stevenson Constable of tho Building Department,
the act Of 1882 required that the floor above the cell
lar or lowest story of any building to be used as
hotel must be fireproof and constructed OF iron or
steel beams with brick arches and these require
ments had not been complied with by Bushcler in his
hotel Prior to April 1892, and up to May *, 1885,
Mr.. Constable said, the place was used as a liquor
saloon and enement-house the liquor store being on
the first floor After the Raines act had passed the
Legislature Busheler obtained leave from the De-
partment to alter his premises so that he could use
them a hotel, but the requirements Of the Laws
OF lsS2 were not complied with.
Mr.. Mayer yesterday cortended that. although
the Building Department had approved the plans
submitted by Busheer for the alteration of his
saloon that II could be used as hotel. that
fact should not prevent ad interim injunction
being granted where the Department had acted in
error. There was no question he said that the
law had been violated In this instance. He knew
he would be confronted with the argument that
the Building Department had approved Busheler's
alterations. but that could not dispose of the
question of fact.
Abraham Gruber, who appeared for the defend
ants in Busheler's and in six other similar cases
on the calendar, said IL would be grave injustice
to his clients II preliminary Injunction was
granted. as 1t would prevent them at once from
CARRYING on their business I'VE submitted our
plans to the Building Department" said Mr.
Gruber. "and they were approved. We carried out
our specifications and have since done business as
n hotel for nearly year. and this section Of the
law upon which the Building Department relies
should not be construed against us in a motion OF
this kind. 1t Is not alleged that our building is
weak or is a danger TO public safety. decision
of the Special Term can be had within sixty days.
as the suit can be tried at the May term. This
Injunction. If issued, will affect at least 1000
business men,.
Justice Pryor said he considered Mr.. Gruber 5
position a very strong one, and finally denied the
motion for ad interim injunction on the under
standing that the defendant would accept short
notice Of trial and have the case disposed Of next
term. The other cases went over until Thursday.