Morgenthau v. Eliopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgenthau v. Eliopoulos

269 A.D.2d 204, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 204 (Morgenthau v. Eliopoulos) 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

Morgenthau v. Eliopoulos, 269 A.D.2d 204, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1999, which held plaintiffs order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction in abeyance pending a fact-finding hearing to determine plaintiffs entitlement to such relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering a fact-finding hearing since the parties’ averments reveal that the facts pertinent to assessing the likelihood of plaintiffs success on the merits in this forfeiture proceeding are disputed (see, Morgenthau v Young, 204 AD2d 118; Dillon v Schiavo, 114 AD2d 924, lv dismissed 67 NY2d 605).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1999, which held plaintiffs order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction in abeyance pending a fact-finding hearing to determine plaintiffs entitlement to such relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering a fact-finding hearing since the parties’ averments reveal that the facts pertinent to assessing the likelihood of plaintiffs success on the merits in this forfeiture proceeding are disputed (see, Morgenthau v Young, 204 AD2d 118; Dillon v Schiavo, 114 AD2d 924, lv dismissed 67 NY2d 605).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 204, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgenthau-v-eliopoulos-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack