Hartford v. Resorts International, Inc.

43 A.D.2d 828, 351 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 828 (Hartford v. Resorts International, Inc.) 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
Hartford v. Resorts International, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 828, 351 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 17, 1973, as granted preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiff is disposed of as follows: The appeal, insofar as it pertains to the second decretal paragraph of the order is unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements. Insofar as the order provides for further injunctive relief it is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and injunctive relief denied. By order, dated December 26, 1973, Special Term modified the order appealed from by deleting therefrom the second decretal paragraph. Accordingly, to the extent that the present appeal seeks to set aside the restraint on the disposal of Resorts’ Class A common stock, pledged by plaintiff as collateral, it is now moot. In any event, injunctive relief was improvidently granted on this record. Special Term’s finding that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if an injunction were not [829]*829granted is not supported, by the record, but its conclusion that the issues ot fact involved are sharply disputed ” is so supported. “ A temporary injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiff shows a clear legal right thereto and, in addition, shows that he would be irreparably damaged if an injunction were not granted before trial”. (DeGandido V. Young Stars, 10 A D 2d 922.) The moving papers must establish both of these prerequisites. Those submitted herein establish neither. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Related

Lincoln Plaza Tenants Corp. v. MDS Properties Development Corp.
169 A.D.2d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
O'Hara v. Corporate Audit Co.
161 A.D.2d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Lidogoster v. Krasnerman
119 Misc. 2d 678 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Village of Honeoye Falls v. Elmer
69 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Public Administrator of New York v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira
59 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
City of Rochester v. Sciberras
55 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
53 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Tanzer Economic Associates, Inc. v. Universal Food Specialties, Inc.
87 Misc. 2d 167 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Belmont Central School District v. Belmont Teachers Ass'n
51 A.D.2d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.2d 828, 351 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-v-resorts-international-inc-nyappdiv-1974.