Veal v. Scheiner
| Decision Date | 01 May 1959 |
| Parties | Charlotte VEAL, Plaintiff, v. Catherine SCHEINER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Communardo L. Renzulli, Oceanside, for plaintiff.
Adolph J. Eckhardt, Baldwin, for defendant.
Motion for an injunction pendente lite directing the defendant to remove a cesspool or cesspools from the plaintiff's property, described in paragraph 2 of the complaint.
The defendant disclaims knowledge of the existence of any cesspool on the plaintiff's property or of the connection of said cesspool with the plumbing system of her building on the adjacent property. She does not allege any facts to support a claim of a right to the maintenance of the cesspool connection, if one should exist. In support of the contention that a cesspool connection exists, the plaintiff offers no factual evidence.
In view of the lack of proof: (1) as to the existence of the cesspool; (2) that the encroachment, if it exists, may not be removed with comparatively little trouble and expense so that the remedy at law would be adequate, and also for the reason that to grant the plaintiff the mandatory injunction desired would destroy the status quo by giving the plaintiff all the relief she could obtain by final judgment, the motion is denied (see Moller v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 174 App.Div. 458, 161 N.Y.S. 171; Pizer v. Trade Union Service, Inc., 276 App.Div. 1071, 96 N.Y.S.2d 377; Ash v. Holdeman, 5 A.D.2d 1017, 174 N.Y.S.2d 215). Lexington & Fortieth Corp. v. Callaghan, 281 N.Y. 526, 531, 24 N.E.2d 316, 317.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Board of Sup'rs, Erie County
...plaintiff. (Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 77 N.E. 657; Engelhardt v. Fessia, 31 Misc.2d 127, 219 N.Y.S.2d 631; Veal v. Scheiner, 18 Misc.2d 962, 187 N.Y.S.2d 444; Sterling v. Brahms, 10 Misc.2d 958, 170 N.Y.S.2d 112; Mastantuono v. Schurachio, Sup., 82 N.Y.S.2d 129, affd. wo. opin. 2......
-
In the Matter of Estate of Cohen, 2004 NY Slip Op 24426 (NY 1/12/2005)
...Condominium v. Cocoziello, 306 AD2d 159 [1st Dept 2003];MacIntyre v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 602 [2d Dept 1995]; Veal v. Scheiner, 18 Misc 2d 962 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1959]; Ornstein v. 1440 Assoc., 11 Misc 2d 793 [Sup Ct, NY County Lest the administratrix be under some misap......
-
Matter of Cohen
...Condominium v Cocoziello, 306 AD2d 159 [1st Dept 2003]; MacIntyre v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 602 [2d Dept 1995]; Veal v Scheiner, 18 Misc 2d 962 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1959]; Ornstein v 1440 Assoc., 11 Misc 2d 793 [Sup Ct, NY County Lest the administratrix be under some misappre......
-
G. W. S. Service Stations, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.
...v. Pritchard, 1 Ch.App. 244 (1865); see, also, Lexington & 40th Corp. v. Callaghan, 281 N.Y. 526, 24 N.E.2d 316; Veal v. Scheiner, 18 Misc.2d 962, 187 N.Y.S.2d 444). The justification for granting a mandatory injunction and the circumstances under which it will properly lie are well summari......