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.
Scott J. RATNER, etc., et al., appellants, v. Eric H. STEINBERG, etc., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant Eric H. Steinberg, D.O., from holding himself out as employed by the plaintiff corporation, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated March 9, 1998, as dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the complaint is reinstated.
It is well settled that “a motion for a temporary injunction opens the record and gives the court authority to pass upon the sufficiency of the underlying pleading” (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 272, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17). However, this power does not extend to an evaluation of conflicting evidence (see, Six Nations Apt. Hous. Fund. Dev. Co. v. Six Nations Props., 175 A.D.2d 567, 572 N.Y.S.2d 234), and if a complaint states a cause of action, the court may not dismiss it on a motion for a preliminary injunction (see, Chiarolanza v. Phelps, 251 A.D.2d 1038, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1024). Moreover, the court may not, on its own initiative, convert a motion for a preliminary injunction into one for summary judgment without giving adequate notice to the parties and affording the parties an opportunity to lay bare their proof (see, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, supra; Farrell v. Kiernan, 213 A.D.2d 373, 623 N.Y.S.2d 314; EDP Hosp. Computer Sys. v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 212 A.D.2d 569, 622 N.Y.S.2d 556). Here, the complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action, and the Supreme Court failed to give the parties notice that it was, in effect, converting the motion for a preliminary injunction into one for summary judgment. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in dismissing the complaint (see, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, supra; Farrell v. Kiernan, supra; EDP Hosp. Computer Sys. v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., supra; cf., Bero v. Bero, 143 A.D.2d 866, 533 N.Y.S.2d 531).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 29, 1999
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)