Legal Opinion

Lehey v. Goldburt

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

Decided December 1, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*411The decision to grant or deny provisional relief is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the court. However, the function of a provisional remedy is “not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties, but to maintain the status quo until there can be a full hearing on the merits” (Residential Bd. of Mgrs. of Columbia Condominium v Alden, 178 AD2d 121, 122 [1991]). Further, the issuance of a mandatory injunction is appropriate only when such extraordinary relief is essential to maintaining the status quo (id.). “[W]here conflicting affidavits raise sharp issues of fact,”…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Welsbach Elec v. Mastec N. AmNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. Duane Reade, Inc. v. Cardtronics, LPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  3. Residential Board of Managers of Columbia Condominium v. AldenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Crabapple Corp. v. ElbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  2. Gibber v. ColtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
  3. Max v. ALP, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
  4. Motichka v. MP 1291 TrustAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API