Case ID: how-pr_42/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Loew, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. Y. COMMON PLEAS.
    Otto Steinberg agt. John O’Conner.
    Where the facts alleged in the complaint, and on which the equities for a preliminary injunction are founded, arc all positively denied by the answer, and it appears to be extremely doubtful whether the plaintiff will ultimately be entitled to the relief demanded, the injunction cannot be sustained.
    
      General Term, March, 1871.
    
      Before Robinson, Loew, and J. F. Daly, JJ.
    
    Appeal from an order of the Special Term denying a motion to vacate a preliminary injunction restraining the Justice of a District Court from issuing a warrant of dispossession in summary proceedings.
    Joseph Fettretch, for the defendant and appellant.
    
    H. Allen, for the plaintiff and respondent.
    
   Loew, J.

We think it is clear that the injunction in this

case cannot stand.

The facts alleged in the complaint, and on which the equities thereof are founded, are all positively denied by the answer, and besides, it appears to ns extremely doubtful whether the plaintiff will ultimately he entitled to the relief he demands.

It is well settled that in such a case a preliminary injunction will not be sustained.

The order appealed from should he reversed and the preliminary injunction dissolved.

Robinson and J. F. Daly, JJ., concurred. revive the suit against the wishes of the plaintiffs. That the Code contained no provision for the revival of an action abated by the death of the defendant, except on the motion of the plaintiff (Keene agt. La Farge, 1 Bosw., 671; Seaboard and R. R. R. agt. Ward, 18 Barb., 595; Cooke agt. Beach, 25 How., 356).