O'Connell v. Ricigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connell v. Ricigliano

232 A.D.2d 386, 648 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9919

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 386 (O'Connell v. Ricigliano) 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

O'Connell v. Ricigliano, 232 A.D.2d 386, 648 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin a court-appointed receiver from collecting rents directly from the subtenants of certain premises, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated April 26, 1996, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, as overbroad, his motion to preliminarily enjoin the court-appointed receiver from collecting rents from all of the subtenants of the subject premises. The collection of rents by the receiver from all of the subtenants in the building was not "an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights” (CPLR 6301) inasmuch as the plaintiff was the shareholder of only one out of the numerous subleased cooperative apartments. Thus, the plaintiff failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action and irreparable injury, absent the granting of the preliminary injunction (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748; Merrill Lynch Realty Assocs. v Burr, 140 AD2d 589; cf., Bur-max Co. v B & S Indus., 135 AD2d 599). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, 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 a court-appointed receiver from collecting rents directly from the subtenants of certain premises, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated April 26, 1996, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, as overbroad, his motion to preliminarily enjoin the court-appointed receiver from collecting rents from all of the subtenants of the subject premises. The collection of rents by the receiver from all of the subtenants in the building was not "an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights” (CPLR 6301) inasmuch as the plaintiff was the shareholder of only one out of the numerous subleased cooperative apartments. Thus, the plaintiff failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action and irreparable injury, absent the granting of the preliminary injunction (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748; Merrill Lynch Realty Assocs. v Burr, 140 AD2d 589; cf., Bur-max Co. v B & S Indus., 135 AD2d 599). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 386, 648 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnell-v-ricigliano-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack