Legal Opinion

Brodsky v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 7, 1988Published

1Opinion of the Court

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction; and (3) that the equities weigh in his favor (Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, 83 AD2d 316, 324; Tucker v Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 324). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his undisputed entitlement to a preliminary injunction through the tender of evidentiary proof (Armbruster v Gipp, 103 AD2d 1014; Camardo v Board of Educ., 50 AD2d 1073). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that burden.

Although…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tucker v. ToiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  2. Niagara Recycling, Inc. v. Town of NiagaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  3. Armbruster v. GippAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Camardo v. Board of Education of the City School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API