Aetna Insurance v. Capasso

New York Court of Appeals

Aetna Insurance v. Capasso

552 N.E.2d 166, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 283

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by247 cases

This text of 552 N.E.2d 166 (Aetna Insurance v. Capasso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Insurance v. Capasso, 552 N.E.2d 166, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 283 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, First Department, should be affirmed and the question certified, "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?”, should be answered in the affirmative. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court, as affirmed "on the law” by the Appellate Division, abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction (see, CPLR 6301; cf., CPLR art 62 [attachment]). We find no such abuse here.

The trial court properly noted that in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs had to show a probability of success, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517). Weighing these factors, the trial court denied the requested relief. The Appellate Division gave no reason for its affirmance (see, 490 Ocean Assocs. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 975, 976-977). We can find nothing in the Appellate Division’s summary affirmance which would warrant a reversal by this court as a matter of law (see, James v Board of Educ., 42 NY2d 357, 363).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, First Department, should be affirmed and the question certified, "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?”, should be answered in the affirmative. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court, as affirmed "on the law” by the Appellate Division, abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction (see, CPLR 6301; cf., CPLR art 62 [attachment]). We find no such abuse here.

The trial court properly noted that in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs had to show a probability of success, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517). Weighing these factors, the trial court denied the requested relief. The Appellate Division gave no reason for its affirmance (see, 490 Ocean Assocs. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 975, 976-977). We can find nothing in the Appellate Division’s summary affirmance which would warrant a reversal by this court as a matter of law (see, James v Board of Educ., 42 NY2d 357, 363).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 N.E.2d 166, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-insurance-v-capasso-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack