Stahl v. Kuhn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stahl v. Kuhn

25 A.D.2d 444, 267 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 444 (Stahl v. Kuhn) 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

Stahl v. Kuhn, 25 A.D.2d 444, 267 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin permanently the defendant from constructing a certain dwelling on his property, adjacent to plaintiffs’ property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 17, 1964, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order modified by striking out its first and second decretal paragraphs, which grant and relate to the preliminary injunction, and by substituting a provision denying plaintiffs’ motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the instant record, it was an abuse of discretion to grant a preliminary injunction.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enjoin permanently the defendant from constructing a certain dwelling on his property, adjacent to plaintiffs’ property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 17, 1964, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order modified by striking out its first and second decretal paragraphs, which grant and relate to the preliminary injunction, and by substituting a provision denying plaintiffs’ motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the instant record, it was an abuse of discretion to grant a preliminary injunction.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 444, 267 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stahl-v-kuhn-nyappdiv-1966.