Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co.

75 A.D.2d 598, 426 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038

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

DecidedApril 14, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 598 (Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co., 75 A.D.2d 598, 426 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to permanently enjoin defendant from (1) erecting utility poles and (2) removing any town-owned trees, without the approval of its superintendent of highways, the Town of Oyster Bay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 12, 1979, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Appeal dismissed as academic, with $50 costs and disbursements. Since Special Term and this court denied plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, defendant has lawfully erected the poles in controversy. An injunction will not issue to prohibit a fait accompli (see Katz v Hoe & Co., 278 App Div 766, mot for lv to app den 302 NY 949, cert den 342 US 886; 7A Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, par 6301.15). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

an action to permanently enjoin defendant from (1) erecting utility poles and (2) removing any town-owned trees, without the approval of its superintendent of highways, the Town of Oyster Bay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 12, 1979, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Appeal dismissed as academic, with $50 costs and disbursements. Since Special Term and this court denied plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, defendant has lawfully erected the poles in controversy. An injunction will not issue to prohibit a fait accompli (see Katz v Hoe & Co., 278 App Div 766, mot for lv to app den 302 NY 949, cert den 342 US 886; 7A Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, par 6301.15). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 598, 426 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-oyster-bay-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack