Globe-Mar Associates, Inc. v. City of White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Globe-Mar Associates, Inc. v. City of White Plains

99 A.D.2d 797, 472 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17189

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 797 (Globe-Mar Associates, Inc. v. City of White Plains) 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

Globe-Mar Associates, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 99 A.D.2d 797, 472 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to quiet title to real property, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered January 30,1984, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term was correct in holding that on the facts presently before it, plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (see Lowe vDi Filippo, 12 AD2d 788; Kent v Winn, 30 AD2d 703; Gottfried v State of New York, 23 Mise 2d 733, mod on other grounds 14 AD2d 612, affd 11 NY2d 1084). In the absence of such proof, Special Term properly refused to grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 (see Albini v Solork Assoc., 37 AD2d 835). Our affirmance of Special Term’s order, insofar as appealed from, however, is not intended to express any opinion with regard to the ultimate result which should be reached after trial. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to quiet title to real property, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered January 30,1984, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term was correct in holding that on the facts presently before it, plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (see Lowe vDi Filippo, 12 AD2d 788; Kent v Winn, 30 AD2d 703; Gottfried v State of New York, 23 Mise 2d 733, mod on other grounds 14 AD2d 612, affd 11 NY2d 1084). In the absence of such proof, Special Term properly refused to grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 (see Albini v Solork Assoc., 37 AD2d 835). Our affirmance of Special Term’s order, insofar as appealed from, however, is not intended to express any opinion with regard to the ultimate result which should be reached after trial. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 797, 472 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globe-mar-associates-inc-v-city-of-white-plains-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack