Madison 52nd Corp. v. Ogust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison 52nd Corp. v. Ogust

25 A.D.2d 645, 269 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 645 (Madison 52nd Corp. v. Ogust) 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

Madison 52nd Corp. v. Ogust, 25 A.D.2d 645, 269 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered December 14, 1965, granting plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent, without prejudice to defendant’s right, if any, to a recovery against the plaintiff for damages sustained by reason of alleged wrongful acts of plaintiff, including unreasonable or wrongful acts, if any, occurring during the period of the temporary injunction and not authorized by the terms thereof. Special Term, in its memorandum decision, determined that “ Any claim for damages either party has against the other is reserved.” Counsel for plaintiff agreed on the argument of the appeal that an affirmance of the order might be predicated upon the aforesaid condition.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered December 14, 1965, granting plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent, without prejudice to defendant’s right, if any, to a recovery against the plaintiff for damages sustained by reason of alleged wrongful acts of plaintiff, including unreasonable or wrongful acts, if any, occurring during the period of the temporary injunction and not authorized by the terms thereof. Special Term, in its memorandum decision, determined that “ Any claim for damages either party has against the other is reserved.” Counsel for plaintiff agreed on the argument of the appeal that an affirmance of the order might be predicated upon the aforesaid condition.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 645, 269 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-52nd-corp-v-ogust-nyappdiv-1966.