Gedney Service Station, Inc. v. Sposato Realty, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gedney Service Station, Inc. v. Sposato Realty, Ltd.

151 A.D.2d 641, 543 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8181

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action by a tenant, inter alia, for injunctive relief against the termination of the tenancy and specific performance of an alleged lease, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Miller, J.), entered November 4, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an application for a preliminary injunction requires a showing that (1) the movant is likely to succeed ultimately on the merits, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, [642] and (3) a balancing of the equities favors granting of the preliminary injunction (see, Weissman v Kubasek, 112 AD2d 1086; Barone v Frie, 99 AD2d 129; 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 6301.13a). In the case at bar, there has been a sufficient showing in the moving papers of these three requirements.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a tenant, inter alia, for injunctive relief against the termination of the tenancy and specific performance of an alleged lease, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Miller, J.), entered November 4, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an application for a preliminary injunction requires a showing that (1) the movant is likely to succeed ultimately on the merits, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, [642] and (3) a balancing of the equities favors granting of the preliminary injunction (see, Weissman v Kubasek, 112 AD2d 1086; Barone v Frie, 99 AD2d 129; 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 6301.13a). In the case at bar, there has been a sufficient showing in the moving papers of these three requirements.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Gedney Service Station, Inc. v. Sposato Realty, Ltd., 151 A.D.2d 641, 543 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

151 A.D.2d 641 (Gedney Service Station, Inc. v. Sposato Realty, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related