Diamond v. City of Kingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diamond v. City of Kingston

32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4211

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 587 (Diamond v. City of Kingston) 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

Diamond v. City of Kingston, 32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum bt the Coubt. Appeal from an order of the -Supreme Court at Special Term which (1) granted the motion of defendants O’Connor and Fox to vacate a preliminary injunction theretofore granted in the action, for plaintiffs’ failure to file the undertaking required by the order granting the injunction (CPLR 6312, subd. [b]), and (2). denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order reducing the amount of the undertaking. The amount fixed was entirely reasonable under the circumstances and, in consequence the refusal to reduce -it was well within the Special Term’s -discretion and will not be disturbed by us. The court having properly declined to modify its prior order was obliged to vacate the injunction. We reach no other issue. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum bt the Coubt. Appeal from an order of the -Supreme Court at Special Term which (1) granted the motion of defendants O’Connor and Fox to vacate a preliminary injunction theretofore granted in the action, for plaintiffs’ failure to file the undertaking required by the order granting the injunction (CPLR 6312, subd. [b]), and (2). denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order reducing the amount of the undertaking. The amount fixed was entirely reasonable under the circumstances and, in consequence the refusal to reduce -it was well within the Special Term’s -discretion and will not be disturbed by us. The court having properly declined to modify its prior order was obliged to vacate the injunction. We reach no other issue. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-v-city-of-kingston-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack