Barrett v. Scharf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Scharf

245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12788

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 328 (Barrett v. Scharf) 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

Barrett v. Scharf, 245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 27, 1996, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the court hearing the motion (see, Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750). To obtain a preliminary injunction the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and (3) that the equities are balanced in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862; Doe v Axelrod, supra, at 750). Based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was an improvident exercise of discretion. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 27, 1996, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the court hearing the motion (see, Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750). To obtain a preliminary injunction the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and (3) that the equities are balanced in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862; Doe v Axelrod, supra, at 750). Based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was an improvident exercise of discretion. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-scharf-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack