Kakalios v. Mesevich

259 A.D. 112, 18 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6061
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1940·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The affidavits submitted by defendants raise such substantial questions as to plaintiff’s right to the relief demanded in the complaint as to call for the denial of his motion.

The granting of a mandatory injunction pendente lite is justified only where the situation is unusual and where the granting of such relief is essential to maintain the status quo pending the trial of the action. (Moller v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 174 App. Div. 458.) In this case there was no jurisdiction for granting this extraordinary relief. The plaintiff concededly is now employed at an adequate salary.

The orders appealed from should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.

Present — O’Malley, Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Orders -unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied.

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

Kakalios v. Mesevich, 259 A.D. 112, 18 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

259 A.D. 112 (Kakalios v. Mesevich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Second On Second Café, Inc. v. Hing Sing Trading, Inc.
66 A.D.2d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
National Education Products, Inc. v. Educational Reading Aids Corp.
34 A.D.2d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
McHugo v. Kozak
18 Misc. 2d 53 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Pizer v. Trade Union Service, Inc.
276 A.D.2d 1071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1950)
Girard Holding Corp. v. Hollander
195 Misc. 878 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Jonas v. Blansid Realty Corp.
179 Misc. 379 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)