r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65; Brown v City of New York, 60 NY2d 897; Burrofato v Cretella, 108 Misc 2d 203; Matter of Rainka v Whalen, 73 AD2d 731, 51 NY2d 973; Matter of Doe v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 484; Matter of Block v Ambach, 73 NY2d 323; Mass v Blum, 112 Misc 2d 898.) IV. The court should not condone "Judge-shopping” in order to induce one Justice to overrule another Justice of coordinate jurisdiction. (DeBerardine v Rockland Elec. Co., 137 AD2d 647.)
Jeffrey R. Metz, Paul N. Gruber, Myron I. Altschuler and Steven L. Schultz for respondent.
I. The Supreme Court properly entertained this action. (Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159; Condon v Associated Hosp. Serv., 287 NY 411; Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532; Matter of Seitz v Drogheo, 21 NY2d 181; Vasquez v Vasquez, 26 AD2d 701; Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co., 143 AD2d 44, 74 NY2d 201; Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 NY2d 143; Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355; Harmor Operating Co. v Vent-O-Matic Incinerator Corp., 1 AD2d 551.) II. Plaintiff established his entitlement to a declaration that the building may be demolished under applicable law. (Huntley v State of New York, 62 NY2d 134; Lichtman v Grossbard, 73 NY2d 792; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492; Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451; Matter of Village Tenth Co. v Walsh, 40 AD2d 969, 33 NY2d 700; Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434; Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205; Seawall Assocs. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 92.) III. The Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the tenants were properly enjoined from maintenance code enforcement