Genachowski v. Gildston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Genachowski v. Gildston

56 A.D.2d 591, 391 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 591 (Genachowski v. Gildston) 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

Genachowski v. Gildston, 56 A.D.2d 591, 391 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants Gildston from constructing a tennis court on their property, in which the said defendants counterclaimed, inter alia, to enjoin plaintiff from interfering with their use of a certain street known as Cook Drive, (1) defendants Gildston appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 1, 1976, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment as to the second counterclaim asserted in their answer and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as failed to grant his cross application for partial summary judgment and permitted defendants to amend their answer. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Defendants Gildston shall serve their amended answer within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Special Term correctly concluded that a permanent injunction should not be granted to either party without a trial. Plaintiff’s cross application to dismiss the first counterclaim contained in the answer of the defendants Gildston was also properly denied. A factual question exists as to whether the temporary restraining orders obtained by plaintiff improperly delayed construction of the tennis court by the Gildstons. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants Gildston from constructing a tennis court on their property, in which the said defendants counterclaimed, inter alia, to enjoin plaintiff from interfering with their use of a certain street known as Cook Drive, (1) defendants Gildston appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 1, 1976, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment as to the second counterclaim asserted in their answer and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as failed to grant his cross application for partial summary judgment and permitted defendants to amend their answer. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Defendants Gildston shall serve their amended answer within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Special Term correctly concluded that a permanent injunction should not be granted to either party without a trial. Plaintiff’s cross application to dismiss the first counterclaim contained in the answer of the defendants Gildston was also properly denied. A factual question exists as to whether the temporary restraining orders obtained by plaintiff improperly delayed construction of the tennis court by the Gildstons. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 591, 391 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genachowski-v-gildston-nyappdiv-1977.