Case Name: WIESBADER v. MARKS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-03-19
Citations: 152 N.Y.S. 248
Docket Number: No. 6939
Parties: WIESBADER v. MARKS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 152
Pages: 248–250

Head Matter:
WIESBADER v. MARKS et al.
(No. 6939.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 19, 1915.)
Injunction <©=>137—Temporary Injunction—Grounds.
Where municipal officers, unlawfully maintaining markets on city property at the time of the commencement of an action by taxpayers to restrain them from continuing so to do, took appropriate steps to correct the illegality before the time for arguing a motion for temporary injunction, temporary injunction will be denied.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 307-309; Dec. Dig. <©=>137.]
Dowling, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Isidor Wiesbader against Marcus M. Marks, as President of the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, and others. From an order denying an injunction pendente lite, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
Argued before CLARKE, LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Abraham Gruber, of New York City, for appellant.
John F. O’Brien, of New York City, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
This is a taxpayer's action to restrain the defendants, who are respectively president of the borough of Manhattan, commissioner of docks and ferries, and commissioner of bridges of the city of New York, from continuing or allowing to be continued certain open markets upon public places belonging to said city. It seems that, in the summer or early autumn of the year 1914, the defendant Marks, with the co-operation of the other defendants, undertook to establish and did establish open markets on public lands belonging to the city of New York, at the Ft. Lee Ferry, at First avenue and Fifty-Ninth street, and at Third avenue and 129th street. The location of the Ft. Lee Ferry market, was on property acquired by the city of New York for dock purposes. The location of the other two markets was on land acquired by the city for bridge purposes.
Strictly speaking, the defendants, in attempting to establish these markets, acted beyond their authority, although no question is made by any one as to the motives by which they were actuated. If it appeared that the defendants, having been advised of the illegality of their acts, persisted in doing that which they have no lawful authority to do, a case might be made for the interference of the court. But it does not so appear. On the contrary, the proper municipal authorities have taken the matter in hand and have acted within the provisions of the charter.
As to the markets at First avenue and Fifty-Ninth street, and at Third avenue and 129th street, the board of aldermen, who have the power so to do, have adopted ordinances establishing markets, subject to such rules and regulations as may be made by the comptroller. As to the market established on dock property at Ft. Lee Ferry, it is represented to us that the commissioner of docks and ferries, within whose jurisdiction the land lies, has ordered the market to be removed, having been advised by the corporation counsel that a market may not lawfully be maintained upon land acquired for dock and bulkhead purposes. It therefore appears that the constituted municipal authorities are taking or have taken the appropriate steps to correct any illegality committed by the defendants. Under these circumstances, we see no occasion to exercise our discretion to grant an injunction pendente lite.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concur.