Brodsky v. Brodsky

208 A.D.2d 669, 618 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9938
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brodsky v. Brodsky. Read the opinion of the Court — 214 A.D.2d 599

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

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).

208 A.D.2d 669 (Brodsky v. Brodsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schneider Leasing Plus, Inc. v. Stallone
172 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Network Financial Planning, Inc. v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
194 A.D.2d 651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)