In re Willams (228 A.D. 668, 1929)

Order, in so far as it grants motion for an alternative mandamus order, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546; affd., 237 N. Y. 617.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents, being of opinion that the remedy of the petitioner is by application for a variance upon the ground of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and that an alternative mandamus order, if granted, substitutes a jury in lieu of the authorities appointed by the Legislature to establish zones under the Zoning Laws.