From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Halpin v. Suffolk Cty. Legislature, Catterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 17, 1991
169 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 17, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Goodman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that in order to qualify for a preliminary injunction, an applicant must establish a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted, and a balance of the equities in his favor (Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860).

Upon an examination of the record, and following oral argument, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction (see, Town of Esopus v Fausto Simoes Assocs., 145 A.D.2d 840, 841; Long Is. Oil Terms. Assn. v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Transp., 70 A.D.2d 303, 305). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Brown, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Halpin v. Suffolk Cty. Legislature, Catterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 17, 1991
169 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Halpin v. Suffolk Cty. Legislature, Catterson

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK G. HALPIN et al., Appellants, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE et…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Doe v. Poe

In any event, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. P. attended the March 30, 1990 and July 6, 1990…