Goodfriend v. Pekofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodfriend v. Pekofsky

110 A.D.2d 814, 488 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48717

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 814 (Goodfriend v. Pekofsky) 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

Goodfriend v. Pekofsky, 110 A.D.2d 814, 488 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[815]*815Special Term properly issued a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from performing real estate broker functions without a license (Real Property Law §§ 440, 440-a, 442-e). As to plaintiff’s challenge to the denial of certain other branches of her motion for preliminary injunctive relief, we agree with Special Term that plaintiff has not demonstrated her entitlement to such a drastic remedy. The arguments on appeal present questions of fact which should more appropriately be raised and determined at trial. Since the partnership certificate had been filed in New York County, it is clear that Special Term misspoke when it referred to the partnership certificate “filed in the Rockland County Clerk’s office”. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

[815]*815Special Term properly issued a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from performing real estate broker functions without a license (Real Property Law §§ 440, 440-a, 442-e). As to plaintiff’s challenge to the denial of certain other branches of her motion for preliminary injunctive relief, we agree with Special Term that plaintiff has not demonstrated her entitlement to such a drastic remedy. The arguments on appeal present questions of fact which should more appropriately be raised and determined at trial. Since the partnership certificate had been filed in New York County, it is clear that Special Term misspoke when it referred to the partnership certificate “filed in the Rockland County Clerk’s office”. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 814, 488 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodfriend-v-pekofsky-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack