Case Name: Adolph Suesskind and Otto Rehfeldt, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Suesskind & Rehfeldt, Respondents, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05-08
Citations: 125 A.D. 787
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adolph Suesskind and Otto Rehfeldt, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Suesskind & Rehfeldt, Respondents, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 787–791

Head Matter:
Adolph Suesskind and Otto Rehfeldt, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Suesskind & Rehfeldt, Respondents, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants.
First Department,
May 8, 1908.
Equity — injunction — desecration of Sunday—threatened arrest hy police officer.
Equity is without jurisdiction to enjoin police officers from carrying out a threat to make arrests for an alleged desecration of Sunday by leasing ballrooms to private persons for social entertainment; the plaintiffs remedy is at law against the individual police officers, or by indictment if property or business be interfered with.
(Laüqhlin, J., dissenting): Equity has jurisdiction to restrain police officers under proper circumstances, as where damage to private business would be irreparable, or the remedy at law is inadequate, or the threatened acts constitute a trespass upon private property.
Appeal- hy the defendants, Theodore A. Bingham, as police commissioner of the .city of New York, and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and. entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 14th day of February, 1908, continuing a temporary injunction pendente lite.
Theodore Connoly, for the appellants.
Charles O. Maas, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
It is quite impossible to see upon what ground the police could claim that these plaintiffs were violating any statute upon the facts here presented. The same question is presented, however, as in the case of Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham (125 App. Div. 780), decided herewith, and plaintiff's remedy is not by injunction, but by an action at law against the individual officers, or an indictment, if their property or business is interfered with.
The order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.
McLaughlin, Glabke and Scott, JJ., concurred; Laughlin, J. dissented.