From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Probolsky v. Rubinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1923
207 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)

Opinion

October, 1923.


We are of opinion that no facts are disclosed which would justify a departure from the rule, frequently announced, that this court will not interfere with the discretion of the court at Special Term in granting or refusing an injunction pendente lite save in an exceptional case. ( Schenck v. Underhill, 205 App. Div. 162.) It appears that the issue in this action was joined in April, 1923, and that the case could have been speedily disposed of upon the merits. The order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Probolsky v. Rubinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1923
207 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)
Case details for

Probolsky v. Rubinberg

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL PROBOLSKY and Others, Doing Business as PROBOLSKY BROS., etc.…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1923

Citations

207 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)