Totman v. Cornell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Totman v. Cornell

166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 865 (Totman v. Cornell) 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

Totman v. Cornell, 166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court [866]*866(Ellison, J.), entered November 3, 1989 in Tompkins County, which granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.

In this action, plaintiff is claiming that defendant is blocking his access to a private drive on his property in violation of a previous court order granting plaintiff a fee to the property and defendant a life use to a portion of the parcel. In our view, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction (see, R & J Bottling Co. v Rosenthal, 40 AD2d 911). Plaintiff set forth sufficient facts to show a likelihood of success and irreparable injury if the obstruction was to continue, as well as a balancing of the equities in his favor (see, Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69 AD2d 297, 306).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court [866]*866(Ellison, J.), entered November 3, 1989 in Tompkins County, which granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.

In this action, plaintiff is claiming that defendant is blocking his access to a private drive on his property in violation of a previous court order granting plaintiff a fee to the property and defendant a life use to a portion of the parcel. In our view, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction (see, R & J Bottling Co. v Rosenthal, 40 AD2d 911). Plaintiff set forth sufficient facts to show a likelihood of success and irreparable injury if the obstruction was to continue, as well as a balancing of the equities in his favor (see, Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69 AD2d 297, 306).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/totman-v-cornell-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack