Case Name: Samuel Probolsky and Others, Doing Business as Probolsky Bros., etc., Respondents, v. Israel Rubinberg, Individually and as Treasurer, etc., and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-10
Citations: 207 A.D. 830
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Probolsky and Others, Doing Business as Probolsky Bros., etc., Respondents, v. Israel Rubinberg, Individually and as Treasurer, etc., and Another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 207
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
Samuel Probolsky and Others, Doing Business as Probolsky Bros., etc., Respondents, v. Israel Rubinberg, Individually and as Treasurer, etc., and Another, Appellants.

Opinion:
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 ease. (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.