Gould v. Aspenleiter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gould v. Aspenleiter

162 A.D.2d 1033, 559 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9817

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1033 (Gould v. Aspenleiter) 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

Gould v. Aspenleiter, 162 A.D.2d 1033, 559 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction. In our view, plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, that he would suffer irreparable injury if the application is not granted, and that a balance of equities favors his position (see, Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69 AD2d 297, 306). The preliminary injunction essentially preserves the status quo by permitting the remaining partner to continue the business and by permitting defendant, the withdrawing partner, access to the partnership records so that he may establish a new business. Defendant’s interest in any of the partnership assets is protected by the substantial undertaking given by plaintiff. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—preliminary injunction.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction. In our view, plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, that he would suffer irreparable injury if the application is not granted, and that a balance of equities favors his position (see, Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69 AD2d 297, 306). The preliminary injunction essentially preserves the status quo by permitting the remaining partner to continue the business and by permitting defendant, the withdrawing partner, access to the partnership records so that he may establish a new business. Defendant’s interest in any of the partnership assets is protected by the substantial undertaking given by plaintiff. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—preliminary injunction.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 1033, 559 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-aspenleiter-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack