Schrager v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schrager v. Klein

267 A.D.2d 296, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to preliminarily enjoin him from “disposing, transferring, dissipating, removing, or otherwise affecting shares of stock in various businesses, as well as all income derived directly or indirectly therefrom, except for the purposes of providing for the care and support of Rose Klein Rabinowitz”.

[297]*297Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

The record does not demonstrate the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and that the injuries alleged would not be compensable by money damages (see, White Bay Enters. v Newsday, Inc., 258 AD2d 520; Graziano v Turiano, 231 AD2d 674; Appio v Mel Lyn Off. Supplying, 222 AD2d 541). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to preliminarily enjoin him from “disposing, transferring, dissipating, removing, or otherwise affecting shares of stock in various businesses, as well as all income derived directly or indirectly therefrom, except for the purposes of providing for the care and support of Rose Klein Rabinowitz”.

[297]*297Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

The record does not demonstrate the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and that the injuries alleged would not be compensable by money damages (see, White Bay Enters. v Newsday, Inc., 258 AD2d 520; Graziano v Turiano, 231 AD2d 674; Appio v Mel Lyn Off. Supplying, 222 AD2d 541). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Schrager v. Klein, 267 A.D.2d 296, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 296 (Schrager v. Klein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related