Probolsky v. Rubinberg
This text of 207 A.D. 830 (Probolsky v. Rubinberg) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
207 A.D. 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/probolsky-v-rubinberg-nyappdiv-1923.