Shayne v. Guelpa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shayne v. Guelpa

38 A.D.3d 877, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 877 (Shayne v. Guelpa) 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

Shayne v. Guelpa, 38 A.D.3d 877, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust upon a parcel of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), entered March 6, 2006, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants, inter alia, from terminating his occupancy of the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits and a balancing of the equities in his favor, two of the requirements that must be shown to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction (see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d [878]*878860, 862 [1990]; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; McNeil v Mohammed, 32 AD3d 829, 830 [2006]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]). Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, 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 upon a parcel of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), entered March 6, 2006, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants, inter alia, from terminating his occupancy of the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits and a balancing of the equities in his favor, two of the requirements that must be shown to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction (see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d [878]*878860, 862 [1990]; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; McNeil v Mohammed, 32 AD3d 829, 830 [2006]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]). Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 877, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shayne-v-guelpa-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack