Case Name: BRILL v. MILLER, Superintendent of Buildings, et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-11-18
Citations: 125 N.Y.S. 865
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRILL v. MILLER, Superintendent of Buildings, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 125
Pages: 865–871

Head Matter:
BRILL v. MILLER, Superintendent of Buildings, et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 18, 1910.)
1. Municipal Corporations (§ 631*)—Building Regulations.
Building Code, § 109, makes the regulations thereof applicable to every theater “hereafter erected,” and section 109a provides that section 109 shall not apply to any theater “now erected.” A building used as a theater was separated by a solid wall from dwelling or tenement houses back of it, and plans which the building department intended to approve contemplated the removal of the wall and demolition of the houses and the erection on the site of the houses of a new building to be connected with the theater; the two structures together constituting a single building to be used as a theater. Held, that the plans did not contemplate a mere alteration and were not within the exception of section 109a.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 631.*)
2. Words and Phrases—“Alteration.”
An “alteration” is generally understood as meaning a change or changes within the superficial limits of an existing structure, or a change of form or state which does not affect the identity of the subject.
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 360-365.)
3. Municipal Corporations (§ 993*)—Taxpayer’s Action.
General Blunicipal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 24) § 51, authorizes an action by any taxpayer against any municipal officer to prevent any illegal official act or to prevent waste or injury to funds or estate of the municipality. Held that, in order for a taxpayer to maintain an action under the statute, he need not show special damage, and it is immaterial whether he is influenced by personal or selfish motives.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2158-2161; Dec. Dig. § 993.*)
4. Municipal Corporations (§ 993*)—Taxpayer’s Action.
General Blunicipal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 24) § 51, authorizes an action by any taxpayer against any municipal officer to prevent any illegal official act or to prevent waste or injury to funds or estate of the municipality. The original taxpayer’s act (Laws 1872, c. 161) contained no provision for an injunction to prevent a threatened illegal official act merely because it was unlawful, nor does Code Civ. Proc. § 1925. Held, that a taxpayer may maintain an action to prevent the superintendent of buildings of the city of New York from approving plans not in conformity with, the Building Code, though such approval would produce no waste or injury of public property or funds.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2158-2161; Dec. Dig. § .993. ]
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Solomon Brill against R. P. Miller as Superintendent of Buildings of the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, and others. Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying a motion for an injunction pendente lite.
Reversed.
Arguedl before INGRAHAM, P. J., and RAUGHRIN, CRARKE, SCOTT, and MIRRER, JJ.
A. S. Gilbert, for appellant.
J. P. O’Brien, for respondent Miller.
Seldon Bacon, for respondents Schinasi and Automatic Vaudeville Co.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
This is a taxpayer's action for an injunction to restrain the defendant Miller, superintendent of buildings of the borough of Manhattan, from approving plans for the erection of a building now said to be used as a theater. The questions involved call for a consideration of sections 109 and 109a of the Building Code, which went into effect in 1899 and superseded all earlier building laws relating to the city of New York. At the time the Building Code went into effect, there had been erected and was in use on the lots known as Nos. 134 and 136 East Fourteenth street, a building used in part as a place of amusement, and in part as a hotel, restaurant, and barroom. The building extended! southwardly towards Thirteenth street, about 116 feet, and at its southerly end was a platform or stage, on which dancing and singing performances were given, although the usual stage appurtenances, such as shifting scenery drops, dressing rooms, and the like, do not seem to have been present. This building was separated by a solid wall from dwelling or tenement houses fronting on Thirteenth street, to which street there was also an exit by means of an alleyway. The plans which the superintendent of buildings expresses his intention of approving, unless restrained, contemplate the removal of the wall now separating the Thirteenth street and the Fourteenth street buildings, the demolition of the houses now fronting on Thirteenth street, and the erection upon the Thirteenth street site of a new building to be connected with and used in conjunction with the present Fourteenth street building, so that the old Fourteenth street building and the new Thirteenth street building will together constitute a single building to be used as a theater. The stage, dressing room, etc., will be in the new part of this building, and the auditorium will be partly in the old part and partly in the new. Section 109 of the Building Code contains detailed and stringent provisions as to the manner in which theaters must be constructed in this city, all of which are designed to afford protection to the public who attend them.
It is conceded that the building intended to be produced by the combination of the old Fourteenth street building and the new Thirteenth street building will not comply with the law. The superintendent of buildings undertakes to justify his proposed action by the following provisions of the Building Code:
"Sec. 109. Theaters and Places of Public Amusement. Every theater or opera house or other public building intended to be used for theatrical or operatic purposes, or for the public entertainment of any kind, hereafter erected for the accommodation of more than three hundred persons shall be built to comply with the requirements of this section. No building which, at the-time of the passage of this Code is not in actual use for theatrical or operatic-purposes, and no building hereafter erected aot in conformity with the requirements of this section, shall be used for theatrical or operatic purposes, or for any public entertainments of any kind, until the same shall have been made to conform to the requirements of this section.
"Sec. 109a. The provisions of the foregoing section shall not be construed to mean or made to apply to any theater, opera house or building intended to be used for theatrical or operatic purposes now erected or for which plans have heretofore been approved by the superintendent of buildings."
His contention is: That the Fourteenth street building was, when the Building Code went into effect, a "theater, opera house or building intended to be used for theatrical purposes"; hence it need not comply with- the stringent provisions of section 109, but might continue to be used as it had been. That the erection of the new structure and its combination with the old one was a mere alteration of. the older building. And that the practically new theater to be formed by the combination of the old and the new buildings must be considered a "theater, etc.," actually in use in 1899.
This contention is unreasonable and untenable. Passing the very doubtful question whether the Fourteenth street building ever was a theater or opera house, or anything more than a saloon to which patrons were attracted by singing and dancing, it seems to be clear to the point of demonstration that, if the plans in question are carried out, the old building will completely lose its identity, and the result will be the erection of a new and much larger theater constructed in defiance of existing laws. This will amount to much more than a mere "alteration," which is generally understood as meaning a change or changes within the superficial limits of an existing structure, or a change of form or state which does not affect the identity of the subject. Century Dict.; Black River Imp. Co. v. Holoway, 87 Wis. 590, 59 N. W. 126; Davenport v. Magoon, 13 Or. 7, 4 Pac. 299, 57 Am. Rep. 1; State v. Warren R. Co., 29 N. J. Law, 353. The result of carrying out the plans, as proposed, would be that a building wholly unauthorized by the Building Code would be erected and used as a theater. Such a building would be unlawful, and, if the superintendent of buildings approves the plans and permits the structure to be erected, he will unquestionably violate his duty and thus perform an "illegal official act," for "that cannot be legal which is forbidden by law." Peck v. Belknap, 130 N. Y. 394—398, 29 N. E. 977. Having arrived, without hesitation, at the conclusion that the approval of the plans by the commissioner of buildings would be unlawful, the more difficult question arises whether or not it is such an "illegal official act" as may be enjoined at the suit of a taxpayer. The statute under which the action is brought now constitutes section 51 of the general municipal law (Consol. Laws, c. 24), being derived from chapter 531, Laws 1881, as amended by chapter 673, Laws 1887, and chapter 301, Laws 1892. It authorizes an action by any taxpayer, qualified as prescribed by the statute, against any officer, agent, commissioner, or other person acting in behalf of any municipal corporation "to prevent any illegal official act on the part of any such officers, agents, commissioners or other persons, or to prevent waste or injury to, or to restore and make good property, funds, or estate" of said municipality. It is not questioned that plaintiff brings himself within the terms of the statute as a taxpayer qualified to sue, and it is therefore immaterial whether or not be shows special damage, or whether or not he is influenced to bring the action by some personal or selfish interest;
The statute provides both for prevention and for reparation, and, as pointed out in Tompkins v. Pallas, 47 Misc. Rep. 309, 95 N. Y. Supp. 875, it authorizes an action by a taxpayer either (1) to prevent an illegal act, or (2) to prevent waste or injury to the public property or funds. To justify an injunction it is not necessary that both illegality and waste or injury are threatened. Either is sufficient. Thus in Ziegler v. Chapin, 126 N. Y. 342, 27 N. E. 471, which was an action to annul a contract for the purchase by the city of Brooklyn of the property and franchises of a water company, no fraud or collusion was charged, and the court expressly found that the complaint contained no sufficient allegation of waste; yet an injunction was upheld upon the sole and specific ground that the city officers had no power under the law to make such a contract, and therefore the attempt to do so was an illegal official action.
The mere illegality therefore of the proposed action by the superintendent of buildings is sufficient to justify the injunction, if his threatened act is one of those which the statute was designed to reach. It is strongly urged upon us that the only illegal official acts which may be'thus enjoined are those which threaten or may produce waste or injury of the public property or funds, and that the approval of the plans, even if unauthorized and illegal, does not threaten such waste or injury. The original taxpayer's act (chapter 161, Laws 1872) contained no provision for an injunction to prevent a threatened unlawful official act merely because it was unlawful, nor does section 1925, Code Civ. Proc. The purpose of inserting such a provision in the act under which this action is brought was to place a taxpayer in a position where he can, before the intervention of vested rights and the equities of' third parties, challenge the legality of the acts of public officials. The statute assumes that any illegal official act is or may be . injurious to the corporation when done by its servant, and allows him to be restrained simply because of its illegality. Warrin v. Baldwin, 105 N. Y. 534, 12 N. E. 49; Queens County Water Co. v. Monroe, 83 App. Div. 105, 82 N. Y. Supp. 610. It was explained in Rogers v. O'Brien, 153 N. Y. 357, 47 N. E. 452, that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to draw into preventive jurisdiction, in equity, at the instance of any taxpayer, every proposed illegal official act, and it was said that to justify an injunction it should appear that the proposed act not only was illegal, but involved "a waste of public property, or a violation of public rights, or an injury to the interests of taxpayers as such." This reasonable limitation upon the scope of the act does not, however, require that the threatened public injury must necessarily be measurable in dollars and cents. There may well be public interests which a taxpayer is interested to conserve, which relate to the general public welfare, and which ought to be protected, and which should, in the first instance, be conserved by some original and faithful public officer. In such a case, if the officer, who should protect the public interests, refuses or neglects to do so, the statute authorizes the intervention of a taxpayer. In Peck v. Belknap, supra, the purpose of the action was to compel compliance with the civil service law. In Tompkins v. Pallas, supra, no pecuniary loss to the municipality was threatened, and the sole purpose of the action was to prevent an unlawful use of a public park.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the stringent regulations of the Building Code respecting the construction of theaters were adopted for the protection of the public, and to prevent, if possible, a recurrence of the distressing disasters which have resulted from the destruction of such buildings. In our opinion the public has such a direct interest in the strict observance of the Code upon that subject that a taxpayer may intervene under the statute to prevent a violation of the law, thus doing what the officers of the municipality ought themselves to do. It would be unjust both to the public, and to the owner of the property, to permit the plans to be approved! and the building erected— to the public because one of its protective laws would be evaded and set at naught; to the property owner because his building would be an illegal structure and its use might be prevented at any time by some successor to the present superintendent.
The result is that the order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to continue the temporary injunction pendente lite granted, with $10 costs.
INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE and MILLER, JJ., concur.