Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Patricia TRIMBOLI, appellant, v. Jill IRWIN, respondent.

Decided: May 31, 2005

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, and STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ. Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael Permut and Linda S. Agnew of counsel), for appellant.

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied her motion for a preliminary injunction.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the fixing of an appropriate undertaking pursuant to CPLR 6312.

 To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of equities in the movant's favor (see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166;  First Franklin Sq. Assocs. v. Franklin Sq. Prop. Account, 15 A.D.3d 529, 790 N.Y.S.2d 527;  South Amherst, Ltd. v. H.B. Singer, LLC, 13 A.D.3d 515, 786 N.Y.S.2d 573;  Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 A.D.3d 604, 781 N.Y.S.2d 684).   The plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on her adverse possession claim by making a prima facie showing that she actually possessed the disputed strip of property, and that her possession was open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, and under a claim of right for the statutory period (see RPAPL 522;  Brand v. Prince, 35 N.Y.2d 634, 364 N.Y.S.2d 826, 324 N.E.2d 314;  Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N.Y. 296, 127 N.E. 239;  Ryan v. Dowicz, 306 A.D.2d 396, 761 N.Y.S.2d 286;  Randisi v. Mira Gardens, 272 A.D.2d 387, 388, 707 N.Y.S.2d 204).   Moreover, “the threat of the destruction of the plaintiff's property constitutes irreparable harm” (Randisi v. Mira Gardens, supra at 388, 707 N.Y.S.2d 204;  see Walsh v. St. Mary's Church, 248 A.D.2d 792, 670 N.Y.S.2d 220;  Wiederspiel v. Bernholz, 163 A.D.2d 774, 558 N.Y.S.2d 739), and a balance of the equities weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief.

Copied to clipboard