Maspeth Branch Realty, Inc. v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maspeth Branch Realty, Inc. v. Waldbaum, Inc.

19 A.D.2d 833, 244 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3142

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 833 (Maspeth Branch Realty, Inc. v. Waldbaum, 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

Maspeth Branch Realty, Inc. v. Waldbaum, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 833, 244 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an injunction and money damages by reason of the defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s easement of a right of way, in which, after a trial, a judgment was entered on February 25, 1963 in favor of the plaintiff for money damages only, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings Comity, dated August 9, 1963 and made after entry of the judgment, granting defendants’ motion for an injunction, pending determination of plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment, restraining plaintiff from “trespassing, obstructing, excavating- or otherwise disrupting the condition” of the land in which the right of way lies. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The courts have no inherent power to grant temporary injunctions; the power to grant such injunctions is limited to that given by the Legislature (Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N. T. 458, 462; Spears V. [834]*834Mathews, 66 N. Y. 127; Kleinman v. Kleinman, 283 App. Div. 1063). Section 818 of the Civil Practice Act, in effect at the time of the making of the order under review, provided that a temporary injunction “ may not be granted after final judgment ” (Cf. CPLR, § 6311). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, J J., concur.

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

In an action for an injunction and money damages by reason of the defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s easement of a right of way, in which, after a trial, a judgment was entered on February 25, 1963 in favor of the plaintiff for money damages only, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings Comity, dated August 9, 1963 and made after entry of the judgment, granting defendants’ motion for an injunction, pending determination of plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment, restraining plaintiff from “trespassing, obstructing, excavating- or otherwise disrupting the condition” of the land in which the right of way lies. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The courts have no inherent power to grant temporary injunctions; the power to grant such injunctions is limited to that given by the Legislature (Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N. T. 458, 462; Spears V. [834]*834Mathews, 66 N. Y. 127; Kleinman v. Kleinman, 283 App. Div. 1063). Section 818 of the Civil Practice Act, in effect at the time of the making of the order under review, provided that a temporary injunction “ may not be granted after final judgment ” (Cf. CPLR, § 6311). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, J J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 833, 244 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maspeth-branch-realty-inc-v-waldbaum-inc-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack