Cario v. Sarr

New York Supreme Court

Cario v. Sarr

41 Misc. 2d 297, 245 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1289

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 Misc. 2d 297 (Cario v. Sarr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cario v. Sarr, 41 Misc. 2d 297, 245 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1289 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Jack Stanislaw, J.

Upon this application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Department of Public Works of the State of New York from erecting a traffic signal supporting pole in a position which allegedly would interfere with plaintiff’s business, defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction. The relief requested, an injunction first temporary and then permanent, is obviously equitable in nature. For this reason, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction must be sustained, the cases heretofore being consistent in upholding the immunity of the State from suit unless specifically it be waived as to actions against it in equity. (Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N. Y. 413; Whitmier & Ferris Co. v. New York State Thruway Auth., 39 Misc 2d 919; Benz v. New York State Thruway Auth., 9 N Y 2d 486; Security Nat. Bank of Long Is. v. Sabatelli, 38 Misc 2d 503; Ruth v. Graceform-Camlin Corset Co., 3 Misc 2d 787; Glassman v. Glassman, 309 N. Y. 436.)

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

Jack Stanislaw, J.

Upon this application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Department of Public Works of the State of New York from erecting a traffic signal supporting pole in a position which allegedly would interfere with plaintiff’s business, defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction. The relief requested, an injunction first temporary and then permanent, is obviously equitable in nature. For this reason, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction must be sustained, the cases heretofore being consistent in upholding the immunity of the State from suit unless specifically it be waived as to actions against it in equity. (Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N. Y. 413; Whitmier & Ferris Co. v. New York State Thruway Auth., 39 Misc 2d 919; Benz v. New York State Thruway Auth., 9 N Y 2d 486; Security Nat. Bank of Long Is. v. Sabatelli, 38 Misc 2d 503; Ruth v. Graceform-Camlin Corset Co., 3 Misc 2d 787; Glassman v. Glassman, 309 N. Y. 436.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Misc. 2d 297, 245 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cario-v-sarr-nysupct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack