Case reopen from 911 allow new changes in fly over of Cities

ALL AMERICAN AIRWAYS v. VILLAGE OF CEDARHURST
201 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1953)

Argued December 10, 1952Decided January 7, 1953
ALL AMERICAN AIRWAYS, Inc., et al. v. VILLAGE OF CEDARHURST et al.

No. 121, Docket 22517.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued December 10, 1952.

Decided January 7, 1953.

James G. Moore, Garden City, N.Y. (Maurice Brandt, Cedarhurst, N Y, on the brief and Emerson A. Swartz, Garden City, N.Y., on the brief for individual defendants-appellants), for defendants-appellants Village and officials.

Fowler Hamilton, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees All American Airways, Inc., et al.

Sidney Goldstein, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee Port of New York Authority.

Samuel J. Cohen, New York City (Henry Weiss, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees Air Line Pilots Association International et al.

Watt H. Denison, Jr., and Joseph Lesser, New York City, on the brief, for appellees.

C. Dickerman Williams, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (Newell A. Clapp, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel M. Friedman, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Emory T. Nunneley, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board, and Richard E. Elwell, Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Administration, all of Washington, D.C., and Frank J. Parker, U.S. Atty., and George Taylor, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for intervenor-appellee Administrator of Civil Aeronautics.

James L. Highsaw, Jr., Washington, D.C., for intervenor-appellee Civil Aeronautics Board. *274

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a district court grant of an injunction pendente lite, which restrains enforcement of an ordinance of the Village of Cedarhurst prohibiting aircraft, inter alia, from flying over the Village at altitudes lower than 1,000 feet until termination of an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The court found the ordinance invalid as conflicting with congressional legislation, and regulations issued pursuant thereto, enacted under its constitutional power to regulate commerce; it held further that enforcement of the ordinance threatened the plaintiffs-appellees with irreparable injury. D.C.E.D.N.Y., 106 F. Supp. 521*

106 F. Supp. 521 is reopen from event of 911