From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Betesh v. Jemal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movants must show a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Betancourt v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 759). Because the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by money damages for any trespass to their property, they failed to show that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted in this case (see, McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan Co., 114 A.D.2d 165, 174). Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion (see, Allmacher v. Digiacomo, 153 A.D.2d 651). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Betesh v. Jemal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Betesh v. Jemal

Case Details

Full title:VICTORIA BETESH et al., Appellants, v. LAWRENCE JEMAL et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 21, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Stangel v. Zhi Dan Chen

The only surviving cause of action asserted against Chen and Liang was to recover damages for breach of…

Petro, Inc. v. Gifford's Fuel Buyers Group

The decision whether to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound,…