Ziankoski v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 27 May 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Stanley ZIANKOSKI, et al., Respondents, v. Michael SIMMONS, et al., Appellants. |
Motion to vacate preliminary injunction granted. Memorandum: The motion for a preliminary injunction should not have been granted because the plaintiffs failed to show that, in the absence of an injunction, they would suffer irreparable injury (see CPLR 6301). Moreover, Special Term had no power to dispense with the undertaking required by CPLR 6312(b). ( City Store Gates Mfg. Corp. v. United States Steel Products, Inc., 79 A.D.2d 671, 671-672, 433 N.Y.S.2d 876)..
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Vassenelli v. City of Fowler
...contention, the court had "no power to dispense with the undertaking required by CPLR 6312(b)" ( Ziankoski v. Simmons, 140 A.D.2d 1007, 1007, 529 N.Y.S.2d 718 [4th Dept. 1988] ; see Duane Sales v. Hayes, 87 A.D.2d 730, 730–731, 449 N.Y.S.2d 333 [3d Dept. 1982] ; compare CPLR 6312[b]with 631......
-
Sutton, DeLeeuw, Clark & Darcy v. Beck
...when it granted a preliminary injunction without requiring plaintiffs to post an undertaking (see, CPLR 6312[b]; Ziankoski v. Simmons, 140 A.D.2d 1007, 529 N.Y.S.2d 718; Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood, supra; Burmax Co. v. B & S Indus., 135 A.D.2d 599, 601, 522 N.Y.S.2d Order reversed on the law......