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

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 296 (Schrager v. Klein) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 296, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schrager-v-klein-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack