Case Name: Lazarus v. Danziger
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-09
Citations: 27 Abb. N. Cas. 147
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAZARUS v. DANZIGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's New Cases
Volume: 27
Pages: 147–149

Head Matter:
LAZARUS v. DANZIGER.
N. Y. Superior Court, Special Term;
September, 1891.
Injunction against taking ex parte proceedings.] Although an injunction should not be granted by one court, against taking proceedings in another tribunal of competent jurisdiction, an injunction may be granted against taking such proceedings, except on notice to the person who seeks the injunction.
Motion to continue an injunction against interfering; with a soda water fountain in front of plaintiff’s premises and during the pendency of the action from commencing, instituting or prosecuting any proceeding to remove or cause it to be removed.
The action for injunction was brought by Marks; Lazarus against Adolph Danziger alleging that plaintiff was owner of premises in front of which was a soda water fountain; that defendant was a tenant of one of the stores in the premises, and threatened to interfere with and remove the soda water fountain; and that plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law.
Goodhart & Phillips, for plaintiff for the motion.
Wm. H. Schuitzer, for defendant, opposed.

Opinion:
McAdam, J.
The plaintiff is the owner in fee of the premises in front of which the soda water stand is erected. It is within the stoop line, was erected in 1884 and has been there since. The defendant hired the adjoining property knowing the structure was there. He was satisfied then, but, since other causes have made trouble, is dissatisfied now. He is determined that the stand shall go. The defendant has no right to interfere with the structure and will be enjoined from disturbing it except by legal proceedings. The application goes further. It seeks to> enjoin the defendant from instituting proceedings to> compel the public authorities to remove the structure.
Injunction. to prevent proceedings at law is one of the most common heads of equity jurisprudence, but nó one court can enjoin a proceeding in another court of the state, having equal power to grant the relief sought, nor will the court by injunction enable a party to try in equity that which can arid should most properly be tried at 'aw. In so far as the plaintiff seeks to enjoin legal proceedings in other courts having jurisdiction, the application will be denied. The court will impose as a condition that the plaintiff, if not made a party, be notified of such other proceedings. This is all that can be done here. The other court must do the rest. Whether the plaintiff's structure interferes with the rights of the public is a question to be determined in such other proceeding. It is but indirectly involved here. Settle order on notice. No costs.