
    Publicity Leasing Company, Respondent, v. Alfred Ludwig, as Superintendent of Buildings of the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellant. Mecca Realty Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.
    
      Publicity Leasing Co. v. Ludwig, 168 App. Div. 239, reversed.
    (Argued January 6, 1916;
    decided January 25, 1916.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 1, 1915, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an injunction pendente lite to restrain the superintendent of buildings of the borough of Manhattan from permitting the increase in height of a certain skysign.
    The following questions were certified: “1. Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? 2. Can the plaintiff as a taxpayer and without alleging special damage maintain an action to enjoin the defendant Alfred Ludwig, as superintendent of buildings from permitting the sign or structure described in the complaint from being erected or the other defendants from erecting the same ? 3. Did the adoption of the ordinance of May 29, 1914, as recited in the complaint render it unlawful thereafter to erect the skysign for which the defendant Ludwig, as superintendent of buildings, had theretofore issued a permit ? ”
    
      Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (John P. O’Brien and John P. Morris of counsel), for superintendent of buildings, appellant.
    
      Hector M. Hitchings for intervening appellants.
    
      Walter H Bond and Louis Gans for respondent.
   Order reversed, with costs, on opinion in Southern Leasing Co. v. Ludwig (217 N. Y. 100). First and second questions certified answered in the negative. Third question not answered.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ.  