
    Triangle Mint Corporation, Appellant, v. Edward P. Mulrooney, as Commissioner of Police of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
    (Argued June 15, 1931;
    decided July 15, 1931.)
    
      Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., and Abraham E. Kartzman for appellant.
    The reversal by the Appellate Division of certain of the findings of fact and the granting of final judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits upon a new and additional finding of fact are not in accordance with the weight of the evidence. (York Mortgage Corp. v. Clotar Const. Corp., 254 N. Y. 128.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from threatened unlawful interference with its property, business and rights, to its injury and damage, under the guise or pretense of enforcing the criminal law. Under such circumstances a court of equity assumes jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. (Biddles, Inc., v. Enright, 239 N. Y. 354; People v. Canal Board, 55 N. Y. 390; Star Co. v. Brush, 185 App. Div. 261; McGorie v. McAdoo, 113 App. Div. 271.) The vending machine in question is not what is commonly known and defined by the Penal Law as a slot machine. (Byk v. Enright, 209 App. Div. 823 ; 240 N. Y. 699; People v. Kopper, 253 N. Y. 83.)
    
      Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corporation Counsel (Joseph P. Reilly of counsel), for respondents.
    The findings of fact and conclusions of law allowed and made by the Appellate Division are sustained by the proof. (Byk v. Enright, 240 N. Y. 699; Carl Co. v. Lennon, 86 Misc. Rep. 255.) The plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction against the defendant. (Delaney v. Flood, 183 N. Y. 323.)
   Per Curiam.

An equity court should exercise its jurisdiction to restrain the police from enforcing a criminal statute, the enforcement of which threatens property damage, only in cases where a clear legal right to that relief is established. The record in this case does not establish such a clear legal right. For that reason the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.  