Case Name: Harry Kershnar, George Kershnar, Morton Kershnar, Simon Kershnar and Pauline Kershnar, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Kershnar Bros. Live Poultry Market, Respondents, v. Max Heller, as President, or Sam Lewis, as Treasurer of Chicken Drivers', Chauffeurs' & Helpers Union Local No. 167, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-11-16
Citations: 258 A.D. 804
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Kershnar, George Kershnar, Morton Kershnar, Simon Kershnar and Pauline Kershnar, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Kershnar Bros. Live Poultry Market, Respondents, v. Max Heller, as President, or Sam Lewis, as Treasurer of Chicken Drivers’, Chauffeurs’ & Helpers Union Local No. 167, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
(November 16, 1939.)
Harry Kershnar, George Kershnar, Morton Kershnar, Simon Kershnar and Pauline Kershnar, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Kershnar Bros. Live Poultry Market, Respondents, v. Max Heller, as President, or Sam Lewis, as Treasurer of Chicken Drivers’, Chauffeurs’ & Helpers Union Local No. 167, Appellant.

Opinion:
Motion of respondents for reargument referred to court that rendered the decision on the appeal. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ. Motion for reargument granted and on reargument the decision of this court handed down on October 31, 1939 [ante, p. 751], is amended to read as follows: Action for a permanent injunction and for a money judgment for damages to plaintiffs' business. Defendant appeals from an order granting plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite and denying defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. Order modified by striking out the provisions thereof which grant the motion for a temporary injunction and in place thereof inserting a provision denying the motion for said injunction; and, as thus modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and $300 disbursements to appellant, with leave to appellant to answer within five days from the entry of the order hereon. T'he plaintiffs are conducting their business in violation of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York (§§ 19, 321, 325). This decision is without prejudice to a renewal of the application for a temporary injunction if defendant does not serve an answer, as above permitted, and take steps to proceed to trial within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. (Kings County Special Term Rules, rule 13, ¶ a.) There should be an immediate trial so that the bona fides of the partnership may be determined as a question of fact. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.