Ambriano v. Curiale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambriano v. Curiale

222 A.D.2d 272, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 272 (Ambriano v. Curiale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ambriano v. Curiale, 222 A.D.2d 272, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about August 8, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant Superintendent of Insurance proceeding with a license revocation hearing pending disclosure, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied the preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek. Even if plaintiffs had made a persuasive showing that defendant has prejudged their case with evidence unrelated to the specific charges against them, and, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, they did not, there can simply be no harm, irreparable or otherwise, until there has been an adverse determination. In that event, plaintiffs’ remedy is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which would automatically stay [273]*273such a determination for 30 days, with the possibility of a further court-ordered stay upon a showing of lack of injury to the interests of the public (Insurance Law § 2124). There being no basis for enjoining the hearing, including adjudicatory delay (see, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 180, cert denied 476 US 1115), the action was properly dismissed. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about August 8, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant Superintendent of Insurance proceeding with a license revocation hearing pending disclosure, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied the preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek. Even if plaintiffs had made a persuasive showing that defendant has prejudged their case with evidence unrelated to the specific charges against them, and, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, they did not, there can simply be no harm, irreparable or otherwise, until there has been an adverse determination. In that event, plaintiffs’ remedy is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which would automatically stay [273]*273such a determination for 30 days, with the possibility of a further court-ordered stay upon a showing of lack of injury to the interests of the public (Insurance Law § 2124). There being no basis for enjoining the hearing, including adjudicatory delay (see, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 180, cert denied 476 US 1115), the action was properly dismissed. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 272, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambriano-v-curiale-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack