Capitol Lighting Products Corp. v. Camhy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capitol Lighting Products Corp. v. Camhy

89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 574 (Capitol Lighting Products Corp. v. Camhy) 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

Capitol Lighting Products Corp. v. Camhy, 89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In actions, inter alia, for permanent injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated February 8,1982, as denied the branch of its motion which was for a special trial preference. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, so much of the order as denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought a special trial preference is vacated, and the said branch of the motion is granted. Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, a special trial preference should have been granted. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In actions, inter alia, for permanent injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated February 8,1982, as denied the branch of its motion which was for a special trial preference. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, so much of the order as denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought a special trial preference is vacated, and the said branch of the motion is granted. Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, a special trial preference should have been granted. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capitol-lighting-products-corp-v-camhy-nyappdiv-1982.