Graziano v. Turiano
| Decision Date | 30 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Citation | 647 N.Y.S.2d 996,231 A.D.2d 674 |
| Parties | Michael T. GRAZIANO, et al., Respondents, v. Steven TURIANO, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (Action) Joan T. POLLOCK, Respondent, v. Steven TURIANO, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dollinger, Gonski, Grossman, Permut & Hirschhorn, Carle Place (Matthew Dollinger, of counsel), for appellants.
Richard C. McCalla, Brewster, for respondents in Action No. 1.
Stephens Hogan & Rossi, Brewster (James W. Borkowski, of counsel), for respondent in Action No. 2.
In two related actions pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for judgments declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiffs in each action have fee simple absolute title to certain real property, the defendants Steven Turiano and Kimberly Turiano appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated April 9, 1996, entered in both actions, which granted the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions are denied.
A preliminary injunction shall not be granted unless the movant establishes (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) that irreparable injury will occur absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities which favors the movant (see, e.g., Zanghi v. State of New York, 204 A.D.2d 313, 611 N.Y.S.2d 263; Albini v. Solork Assoc., 37 A.D.2d 835, 326 N.Y.S.2d 150). Moreover, "[p]reliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that will not be granted unless a clear right to it is established under the law and upon undisputed facts found in the moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant" (Zanghi v. State of New York, supra, at 314, 611 N.Y.S.2d 263). Here, the movants have not met their burden, and therefore, the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctions should have been denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallina v. Giacalone
...862, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166; Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 420 N.E.2d 953; Graziano v. Turiano, 231 A.D.2d 674, 647 N.Y.S.2d 996 [2d Dept]; Board of Dir. of Exec. House Owners, Inc. v. E.H. Assocs., 230 A.D.2d 816, 646 N.Y.S.2d 631, 632 [2d Dept]; Yeshi......
-
Billings, Matter of
...of showing the property was in danger of immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted (see, Graziano v. Turiano, 231 A.D.2d 674, 647 N.Y.S.2d 996; McCall v. Beck, 284 App.Div. 838, 130 N.Y.S.2d 785, as amended 284 App.Div. 857, 134 N.Y.S.2d MILLER, J.P., and PIZZUTO, JO......
-
Schrager v. Klein
...be compensable by money damages (see, White Bay Enterprises Ltd. v. Newsday, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 520, 685 N.Y.S.2d 257; Graziano v. Turiano, 231 A.D.2d 674, 647 N.Y.S.2d 996; Appio v. Mel Lyn Off. Supplying, 222 A.D.2d 541, 635 N.Y.S.2d 651). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to a pr......