Case Name: Clara M. Heimerle, Harry Heimerle, Thomas Layden, Ruth E. Weaver, Anna Burgess and Florence Parr Gere, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Charles A. Benedict and Clarence A. Benedict, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-03-13
Citations: 256 A.D. 993
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clara M. Heimerle, Harry Heimerle, Thomas Layden, Ruth E. Weaver, Anna Burgess and Florence Parr Gere, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Charles A. Benedict and Clarence A. Benedict, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
Clara M. Heimerle, Harry Heimerle, Thomas Layden, Ruth E. Weaver, Anna Burgess and Florence Parr Gere, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Charles A. Benedict and Clarence A. Benedict, Appellants, v. Village of Bronxville and Henry G. Kimball, as President, Frederick L. Devereux and Others, as Trustees, and Rudolph N. Miller, as Superintendent of Buildings, of the Village of Bronxville, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Opinion:
These are two actions for a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs seek to have declared as invalid a zoning ordinance in so far as it pertains to their conducting an undertaking establishment in the village of Bronxville, and to prevent the municipal authorities from enforcing the ordinance as against them. In each action judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —• Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ. [168 Mise. 783.]