Carman v. Congregacion De Mita of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carman v. Congregacion De Mita of New York, Inc.

269 A.D.2d 416, 702 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 416 (Carman v. Congregacion De Mita of New York, Inc.) 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

Carman v. Congregacion De Mita of New York, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 416, 702 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to permanently enjoin the defendant Congregación De Mita of New York, Inc., from proceeding before the Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals in contravention of a duly-recorded restrictive covenant, and to declare that said restrictive covenant prohibits that defendant’s proposed use of the property, the defendant Congregación De Mita of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered October 16, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Albini v Solork Assocs., 37 AD2d 835). Preliminary injunctive relief will be granted where, as here, the movant establishes a clear right to such relief under the law and the undisputed facts as found in the moving papers (see, Anastasi v Majopon Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706, 707; County of Orange v Lackey, 111 AD2d 896). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to permanently enjoin the defendant Congregación De Mita of New York, Inc., from proceeding before the Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals in contravention of a duly-recorded restrictive covenant, and to declare that said restrictive covenant prohibits that defendant’s proposed use of the property, the defendant Congregación De Mita of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered October 16, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Albini v Solork Assocs., 37 AD2d 835). Preliminary injunctive relief will be granted where, as here, the movant establishes a clear right to such relief under the law and the undisputed facts as found in the moving papers (see, Anastasi v Majopon Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706, 707; County of Orange v Lackey, 111 AD2d 896). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 416, 702 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carman-v-congregacion-de-mita-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack