Probolsky v. Rubinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Probolsky v. Rubinberg

207 A.D. 830

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1923·Published

Opinion

We are of opinion that no facts are disclosed which would [831]*831justify a departure from the rule, frequently announced, that this court will not interfere with the discretion of the court at Special Term in granting or refusing an injunction pendente lite save in an exceptional ease. (Schenck v. Underhill, 205 App. Div. 162.) It appears that the issue in this action was joined in April, 1923, and that the case could have been speedily disposed of upon the merits. The order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur.

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

We are of opinion that no facts are disclosed which would [831]*831justify a departure from the rule, frequently announced, that this court will not interfere with the discretion of the court at Special Term in granting or refusing an injunction pendente lite save in an exceptional ease. (Schenck v. Underhill, 205 App. Div. 162.) It appears that the issue in this action was joined in April, 1923, and that the case could have been speedily disposed of upon the merits. The order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur.

Probolsky v. Rubinberg, 207 A.D. 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

207 A.D. 830 (Probolsky v. Rubinberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related