Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
VILLAGE/TOWN OF MOUNT KISCO, appellant, v. RENE DUBOS CENTER FOR HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS, INC., et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the sale of real property owned by the defendant Rene Dubos Center for Human Environments, Inc., to any third party proposing to develop the subject property in violation of a certain restrictive covenant, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered August 15, 2003, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff sought, inter alia, to enjoin the sale of certain real property to any entity proposing to develop that property in violation of certain restrictive covenant. However, that restrictive covenant was found invalid in a related action involving the same parties (see Cappelli Armonk, LLC v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 12 A.D.3d 477, 784 N.Y.S.2d 630 [decided herewith] ), and the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff in this action is bound by that finding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487). Thus, since the plaintiff could not show the requisite likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (see Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272). Further, the plaintiff's claim of irreparable injury was merely speculative (see Golden v. Steam Heat, 216 A.D.2d 440, 628 N.Y.S.2d 375).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 15, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)