Fucci v. Cloder

254 A.D. 487, 5 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6460
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1938·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While plaintiffs state a good cause of action and should prevail upon a trial if their allegations are sustained by proof (Old Dearborn Co. v. Seagram Corp., 299 U. S. 183; Bourjois Sales Corp. v. Dorfman, 273 N. Y. 167; Port Chester Wine & Liquor Shop, Inc., v. Miller Bros., 253 App. Div. 188), we think that upon the papers in support of the original motion for a prehminary injunction, the facts were not sufficiently established to warrant the granting of the temporary relief sought. It is to be noted that the action itself, if expeditiously prosecuted, might have been disposed of by trial at Special Term long before the argument of this appeal.

The orders should be, accordingly, affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — O’Malley, Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ..

' Orders unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Fucci v. Cloder, 254 A.D. 487, 5 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

254 A.D. 487 (Fucci v. Cloder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Automotive Electric Service Corp. v. Times Square Stores Corp.
175 Misc. 865 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)