Patti v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patti v. Cohen

227 A.D.2d 602, 643 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108

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

DecidedMay 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 602 (Patti v. Cohen) 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

Patti v. Cohen, 227 A.D.2d 602, 643 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the defendants Paul Cohen, Jane Cohen, and Debbie Leiman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 19, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a certain driveway.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from interfering with their use of a driveway located on and between the plaintiffs’ property and the appellants’ property. The plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Melvin v Union Coll., 195 AD2d 447; Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v June, 190 AD2d 644; Burmax Co. v B & S Indus., 135 [603]*603AD2d 599; 487 Elmwood v Hassett, 107 AD2d 285; Matter of XAR Corp. v Di Donato, 76 AD2d 972). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the defendants Paul Cohen, Jane Cohen, and Debbie Leiman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 19, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a certain driveway.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from interfering with their use of a driveway located on and between the plaintiffs’ property and the appellants’ property. The plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Melvin v Union Coll., 195 AD2d 447; Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v June, 190 AD2d 644; Burmax Co. v B & S Indus., 135 [603]*603AD2d 599; 487 Elmwood v Hassett, 107 AD2d 285; Matter of XAR Corp. v Di Donato, 76 AD2d 972). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 602, 643 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patti-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack