Schleissner v. 325 West 45 Equities Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schleissner v. 325 West 45 Equities Group

210 A.D.2d 13, 618 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11894

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 13 (Schleissner v. 325 West 45 Equities Group) 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

Schleissner v. 325 West 45 Equities Group, 210 A.D.2d 13, 618 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 24, 1993, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs, nonpurchasing tenants in a building converted to cooperative ownership, sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from denying them access to the roof and its use for recreational purposes. The IAS Court [14]*14properly denied the motion since quite apart from whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success, money damages are an adequate remedy for a reduction in landlord services (see, Goldner v Doknovitch, 88 Misc 2d 88, 91). Accordingly, the plaintiffs did not show the essential element of probable irreparable harm.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 24, 1993, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs, nonpurchasing tenants in a building converted to cooperative ownership, sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from denying them access to the roof and its use for recreational purposes. The IAS Court [14]*14properly denied the motion since quite apart from whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success, money damages are an adequate remedy for a reduction in landlord services (see, Goldner v Doknovitch, 88 Misc 2d 88, 91). Accordingly, the plaintiffs did not show the essential element of probable irreparable harm.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 13, 618 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schleissner-v-325-west-45-equities-group-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack