Case Name: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. R & G INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1960-10-27
Citations: 123 So. 2d 754
Docket Number: No. 59-411
Parties: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. R & G INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
Judges: HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 123
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. R & G INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
No. 59-411.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Oct. 27, 1960.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1960.
Joseph A. Wanick, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Sibley, Grusmark, Barkdull & King, and Stanley B. Richard, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellee sought an injunction against the City of Miami Beach to enjoin interference with its valet service operated by it in the Crown Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. The chancellor granted a temporary injunction and, on final hearing, made the injunction permanent.
The appellant contends that a valet service operated with equipment installed in a structure zoned for hotels violates the zoning ordinance by performing dry cleaning services for persons outside the hotel in which the equipment is located. No authorities have been cited for this posi tion by the appellant, and the ordinance itself does not appear to he broad enough to encompass the position which the appellant seems to take on appeal. Since the zoning ordinance — No. 289 — is not broad enough to encompass the prohibition against furnishing valet services beyond the limits of the hotel in which the equipment is located, we conclude that the appellant's remedy is through appropriate legislation if it feels that the situation complained of should be remedied.
Finding as we do that no reversible error has been demonstrated, the decree appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.