Rupert v. Rupert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rupert v. Rupert

190 A.D.2d 1028

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1028 (Rupert v. Rupert) 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

Rupert v. Rupert, 190 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: A preliminary injunction should not be granted where the right to ultimate relief in the action is in doubt (12 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 78:7). Nor should it be granted unless there is a showing that some act is being done or is threatened and imminent that will be destructive of such right (12 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 78:18). Thus, absent a showing that the antenuptial agreement was invalid and that defendant was about to dissipate his assets, the court should not have enjoined defendant from disposing of his separate property. The order appealed from is modified, therefore, by deleting the provision restraining defendant from disposing of his separate property. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — Preliminary Injunction.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: A preliminary injunction should not be granted where the right to ultimate relief in the action is in doubt (12 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 78:7). Nor should it be granted unless there is a showing that some act is being done or is threatened and imminent that will be destructive of such right (12 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 78:18). Thus, absent a showing that the antenuptial agreement was invalid and that defendant was about to dissipate his assets, the court should not have enjoined defendant from disposing of his separate property. The order appealed from is modified, therefore, by deleting the provision restraining defendant from disposing of his separate property. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — Preliminary Injunction.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rupert-v-rupert-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack