Popack v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Popack v. Rice

261 A.D.2d 463, 687 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 463 (Popack v. Rice) 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

Popack v. Rice, 261 A.D.2d 463, 687 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to permanently enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ ability to manage the real property at issue, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 6, 1998, which denied their application for preliminary injunctive relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in declining to grant preliminary injunctive relief. It is well settled that in order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Albini v Solork Assocs., 37 AD2d 835). Preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy and will only be granted if the movant establishes a clear right to this relief under the law and the undisputed facts found in the moving papers (Anastasi v Majapan Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706, 707; County of Orange v Lockey, 111 AD2d 896). The plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to permanently enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ ability to manage the real property at issue, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 6, 1998, which denied their application for preliminary injunctive relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in declining to grant preliminary injunctive relief. It is well settled that in order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Albini v Solork Assocs., 37 AD2d 835). Preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy and will only be granted if the movant establishes a clear right to this relief under the law and the undisputed facts found in the moving papers (Anastasi v Majapan Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706, 707; County of Orange v Lockey, 111 AD2d 896). The plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 463, 687 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popack-v-rice-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack