Brodsky v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. City of Rochester

142 A.D.2d 1002, 530 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 1002 (Brodsky v. City of Rochester) 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. City of Rochester, 142 A.D.2d 1002, 530 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction; and (3) that the equities weigh in his favor (Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, 83 AD2d 316, 324; Tucker v Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 324). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his undisputed entitlement to a preliminary injunction through the tender of evidentiary proof (Armbruster v Gipp, 103 AD2d 1014; Camardo v Board of Educ., 50 AD2d 1073). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that burden.

Although plaintiff’s tenants are unable to proceed westerly on East Avenue after they leave the complex, their ingress to and egress from the apartment project is not obstructed or impeded. The tenants’ inconvenience results not from any obstruction of their entrance and exit way, but from the closing of a portion of East Avenue which is an inconvenience suffered in common with other residents of East Avenue. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that the equities weigh in his favor since the opening of the entrance and exit to and from Gould Street will impose an additional burden on the residents of that street. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Scudder, J.— preliminary injunction.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction; and (3) that the equities weigh in his favor (Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, 83 AD2d 316, 324; Tucker v Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 324). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his undisputed entitlement to a preliminary injunction through the tender of evidentiary proof (Armbruster v Gipp, 103 AD2d 1014; Camardo v Board of Educ., 50 AD2d 1073). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that burden.

Although plaintiff’s tenants are unable to proceed westerly on East Avenue after they leave the complex, their ingress to and egress from the apartment project is not obstructed or impeded. The tenants’ inconvenience results not from any obstruction of their entrance and exit way, but from the closing of a portion of East Avenue which is an inconvenience suffered in common with other residents of East Avenue. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that the equities weigh in his favor since the opening of the entrance and exit to and from Gould Street will impose an additional burden on the residents of that street. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Scudder, J.— preliminary injunction.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 1002, 530 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack