Southard v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Southard v. Salerno

113 A.D.2d 927, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52553

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 A.D.2d 927 (Southard v. Salerno) 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

Southard v. Salerno, 113 A.D.2d 927, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages and for a permanent injunction arising out of defendant’s alleged interference with plaintiff’s use of her business premises, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated December 10, 1984, which failed to grant a preliminary injunction and which vacated a temporary restraining order which had been granted on November 29, 1984.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[928]*928The record shows the existence of a sharp question of fact as to the ownership of the delicatessen business at issue in the case. Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to refuse to grant a preliminary injunction and we see no reason to substitute our own discretion for that of Special Term. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages and for a permanent injunction arising out of defendant’s alleged interference with plaintiff’s use of her business premises, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated December 10, 1984, which failed to grant a preliminary injunction and which vacated a temporary restraining order which had been granted on November 29, 1984.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[928]*928The record shows the existence of a sharp question of fact as to the ownership of the delicatessen business at issue in the case. Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to refuse to grant a preliminary injunction and we see no reason to substitute our own discretion for that of Special Term. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 927, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southard-v-salerno-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack