Greenfield v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfield v. Harris

109 A.D.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47385

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 869 (Greenfield v. Harris) 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

Greenfield v. Harris, 109 A.D.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction and damages, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.),. dated January 3, 1985, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant Harris and granted defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Plaintiffs failed to establish a clear right to a preliminary injunction (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496), in that they were unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Additionally, plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action as against defendant Aetna by failing to allege any wrongdoing on its part (see, Long Is. Region Natl. Assn. v Town of North Hempstead, 102 Misc 2d 704, affd 75 AD2d 842). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction and damages, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.),. dated January 3, 1985, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant Harris and granted defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Plaintiffs failed to establish a clear right to a preliminary injunction (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496), in that they were unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Additionally, plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action as against defendant Aetna by failing to allege any wrongdoing on its part (see, Long Is. Region Natl. Assn. v Town of North Hempstead, 102 Misc 2d 704, affd 75 AD2d 842). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-harris-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack