Case ID: nys_147/html/0244-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

URBANO v. HALLENBECK et al.
    (No. 5734.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 24, 1914.)
    Injunction (§ 136*)—Issuance—Nuisance.
    Where the complaint and affidavits, which were not traversed, showed ■ continual trespasses amounting to a nuisance in front of plaintiff’s premises, an injunction pendente lite was properly awarded.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 305', 306; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Victor Urbano against Harry C. Hallenbeck and another. From' an order denying motion for injunction pendente lite, plaintiff' appeals.
    Order reversed and motion granted.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    Merle I. St. John, of New York City, for appellant.
    Francis J. Byrne, of New York City, for respondents..
   PER CURIAM.

The facts disclosed in the complaint and affidavit, which are .entirely undenied by the defendant, show a continual trespass in front of the plaintiff’s premises, and are sufficient to constitute a nuisance.. Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining such continual trespass and nuisance, and the order is therefore reversed, with $1Q costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.