S.P.Q.R. Co., Inc. v. United Rockland Stairs, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2008
• Docket Number: 2007-06117.
• Citation: S.P.Q.R. Co., Inc. v. United Rockland Stairs, Inc., 57 AD3d 642, 868 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2008 NY Slip Op 9771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
• Parties: S.P.Q.R. Co., INC., et al., Appellants, v. UNITED ROCKLAND STAIRS, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

57 A.D.3d 642

868 N.Y.S.2d 318

2008 NY Slip Op 09771

S.P.Q.R. Co., INC., et al., Appellants, v. UNITED ROCKLAND STAIRS, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

2007-06117.

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

December 9, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., from trespassing on a certain disputed parcel of real property and to compel that defendant to remove a fence from that property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated May 21, 2007, as granted the motion of the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., for a preliminary injunction (see CPLR 6301, 6312 [c]; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 [1988]; Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]). While it is true the plaintiffs showed the existence of at least a factual question as to the true ownership of the disputed parcel, that was not, under the circumstances of this case, a sufficient reason to deny the motion for a preliminary...