Kew Forest Neighborhood Ass'n v. Lieberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kew Forest Neighborhood Ass'n v. Lieberman

284 A.D.2d 377, 725 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 377 (Kew Forest Neighborhood Ass'n v. Lieberman) 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

Kew Forest Neighborhood Ass'n v. Lieberman, 284 A.D.2d 377, 725 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the construction of an apartment building as being in violation of a restrictive covenant, the defendants appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 19, 2000, which, inter alia, [378]*378denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the granting of the injunction, and that the balance of the equities is in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the construction of an apartment building as being in violation of a restrictive covenant, the defendants appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 19, 2000, which, inter alia, [378]*378denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the granting of the injunction, and that the balance of the equities is in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 377, 725 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kew-forest-neighborhood-assn-v-lieberman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack