Godfrey v. Matzene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Godfrey v. Matzene

173 A.D. 913, 158 N.Y.S. 530

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D. 913 (Godfrey v. Matzene) 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

Godfrey v. Matzene, 173 A.D. 913, 158 N.Y.S. 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The application ex parte to vacate the injunction should be denied. While the Appellate Division of this department may have power under section 626 of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate and set aside without notice the injunction order (Matter of Porter, 30 App. Div-251), we think the power should not be exercised. It is not so clear that the papers upon which the order was granted do not make out a case for a temporary restraining order as to warrant setting aside the order summarily and without notice. This motion must be determined upon those papers alone. The order to show cause why the injunction should not be continued is returnable at Special Term to-morrow, at which time a full hearing may be had, and we cannot assume that that court will not make a proper disposition of the matter. All concurred, except Merrell, J., who dissented. Application denied.

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

Per Curiam:

The application ex parte to vacate the injunction should be denied. While the Appellate Division of this department may have power under section 626 of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate and set aside without notice the injunction order (Matter of Porter, 30 App. Div-251), we think the power should not be exercised. It is not so clear that the papers upon which the order was granted do not make out a case for a temporary restraining order as to warrant setting aside the order summarily and without notice. This motion must be determined upon those papers alone. The order to show cause why the injunction should not be continued is returnable at Special Term to-morrow, at which time a full hearing may be had, and we cannot assume that that court will not make a proper disposition of the matter. All concurred, except Merrell, J., who dissented. Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D. 913, 158 N.Y.S. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-matzene-nyappdiv-1916.