Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso

• Decision Date: 22 February 1990
• Citation: 75 N.Y.2d 860,552 N.Y.S.2d 918,552 N.E.2d 166
• Parties: , 552 N.E.2d 166 AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Nancy CAPASSO, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 918

552 N.Y.S.2d 918

75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.E.2d 166

AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v.Nancy CAPASSO, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al Third-Party Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 22, 1990.

[75 N.Y.2d 862] Joseph DiBenedetto, Anthony J. D'Auria and Thomas J. Quigley, New York City, for appellants.

Steven J. Hyman and Paul H. Levinson, New York City, for respondent and third-party plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, First Department, 151 A.D.2d 1056, 544 N.Y.S.2d 264, should be affirmed and the question certified, "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?", should be answered in the affirmative.The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court, as affirmed "on the law" by the Appellate Division, abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction (see, CPLR 6301;cf., CPLR art. 62[attachment].We find no such abuse here.

The trial court properly noted that in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs had to show a probability of success, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 420 N.E.2d 953).Weighing these factors, the trial court denied the requested relief.The Appellate Division gave no reason for its affirmance (see, 490 Ocean Assocs. v. Abrams, 71 N.Y.2d 975, 976-977, 529 N.Y.S.2d 66, 524 N.E.2d 420).We can find nothing in the Appellate Division's summary...