Brodsky v. Brodsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. Brodsky

208 A.D.2d 669, 618 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9938

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 669 (Brodsky v. Brodsky) 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

Brodsky v. Brodsky, 208 A.D.2d 669, 618 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 8, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. There are sharp factual disputes as to key issues in the record which preclude a finding of a likelihood of success and irreparable injury at this juncture and which warrant the denial of the motion (see, Schneider Leasing Plus v Stallone, 172 AD2d 739; Network Fin. Planning v Prudential-Bache Sec., 194 AD2d 651, 652). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 8, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. There are sharp factual disputes as to key issues in the record which preclude a finding of a likelihood of success and irreparable injury at this juncture and which warrant the denial of the motion (see, Schneider Leasing Plus v Stallone, 172 AD2d 739; Network Fin. Planning v Prudential-Bache Sec., 194 AD2d 651, 652). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 669, 618 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-brodsky-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack