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.
Hal R. GINSBURG, et al., appellants, v. OCK-A-BOCK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to compel the determination of claims to certain real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated February 7, 2005, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated August 18, 2005, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated February 7, 2005, is dismissed as that order was superseded by the order dated August 18, 2005, made upon renewal; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 18, 2005, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants payable by the plaintiffs.
On a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant has the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the movant will likely succeed on the merits of the action, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and (3) the balance of equities is in favor of the movant (see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166; W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 420 N.E.2d 953; Price Paper and Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 A.D.2d 748, 582 N.Y.S.2d 746; Albini v. Solork Assocs., 37 A.D.2d 835, 326 N.Y.S.2d 150). The determination to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the court (see Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 A.D.3d 604, 781 N.Y.S.2d 684).
In the instant action, regarding the rights of access to a beach, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as well as, upon renewal, adhering to that determination, on the ground that they failed to demonstrate they would suffer irreparable injury absent the grant of the injunction (see Schweizer v. Town of Smithtown, 19 A.D.3d 682, 798 N.Y.S.2d 99).
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: November 21, 2006
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)