From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Northeast Hotel Associates v. Natl. Advert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1989
155 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 13, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly directed the defendant National Advertising Company to remove the billboard sign which it constructed upon plaintiff's property without first obtaining all necessary governmental approvals, and properly enjoined it from erecting any further sign structure on the plaintiff's property during the pendency of this action. The record discloses that the plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits (see, Matter of National Adv. Co. v Blankfein, 155 A.D.2d 544 [decided herewith]), that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury absent preliminary injunctive relief, and that the balance of equities is in the plaintiff's favor (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517; Matter of Brenner v Hart Sys., 114 A.D.2d 363). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Northeast Hotel Associates v. Natl. Advert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1989
155 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Northeast Hotel Associates v. Natl. Advert

Case Details

Full title:NORTHEAST HOTEL ASSOCIATES, Respondent, v. NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Hertzwig

y v. Town of Babylon, 41 N.Y.2d 738). An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of…

Valdez v. Northeast Brooklyn Hous. Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff, however, maintains that she was never informed that the "cluster" referred to in the Agreement or…