Antar v. Antar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antar v. Antar

168 A.D.2d 405, 563 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14965

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 405 (Antar v. Antar) 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

Antar v. Antar, 168 A.D.2d 405, 563 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of a separation agreement and vacatur of a judgment of divorce, entered February 5, 1985, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 2, 1989, which denied her motion to enjoin the defendant from "transferring, conveying, assigning, encumbering or removing * * * any of his assets except * * * in the ordinary course of business”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs application for injunctive relief. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing the necessity of the relief she requested (see, CPLR 6312; Allmacher v Digiacomo, 153 AD2d 651; Kurzban & Son v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 756). We note that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the more liberal rules of Domestic Relations Law § 234 concerning preliminary injunctions, since the instant action is not of the type specified in the statute (see, Drazal v Drazal, 122 AD2d 829; Leibowits v Leibowits, 93 AD2d 535; accord, Posman v Posman, 108 AD2d 847). Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of a separation agreement and vacatur of a judgment of divorce, entered February 5, 1985, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 2, 1989, which denied her motion to enjoin the defendant from "transferring, conveying, assigning, encumbering or removing * * * any of his assets except * * * in the ordinary course of business”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs application for injunctive relief. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing the necessity of the relief she requested (see, CPLR 6312; Allmacher v Digiacomo, 153 AD2d 651; Kurzban & Son v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 756). We note that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the more liberal rules of Domestic Relations Law § 234 concerning preliminary injunctions, since the instant action is not of the type specified in the statute (see, Drazal v Drazal, 122 AD2d 829; Leibowits v Leibowits, 93 AD2d 535; accord, Posman v Posman, 108 AD2d 847). Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 405, 563 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antar-v-antar-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack