Opinion
01-14-2015
Margaret LAMOUREE, etc., et al., respondents, v. James L. EWART III, appellant, et al., defendant.
Lawrence H. Silverman, Commack, N.Y., for appellant. Law Office of James D. Reddy, P.C., Lindenhurst, N.Y., for respondents.
Lawrence H. Silverman, Commack, N.Y., for appellant.
Law Office of James D. Reddy, P.C., Lindenhurst, N.Y., for respondents.
Opinion In an action, inter alia, to void a deed and to impose a constructive trust on certain property, the defendant James L. Ewart III, appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated August 8, 2012, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his cross motion which was to vacate a preliminary injunction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant James L. Ewart III, which was to vacate the subject preliminary injunction. Ewart failed to allege facts showing compelling or changed circumstances that would render continuation of the injunction inequitable (see Thompson v. 76 Corp., 54 A.D.3d 844, 846, 865 N.Y.S.2d 233 ; Matter of Xander Corp. v. Haberman, 41 A.D.3d 489, 490–491, 838 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; Wellbilt Equip. Corp. v. Red Eye Grill, 308 A.D.2d 411, 411, 765 N.Y.S.2d 490 ), or that the conditions which justified the prohibition had vanished (see People v. Scanlon, 11 N.Y.2d 459, 462, 230 N.Y.S.2d 708, 184 N.E.2d 302 ; Enterprise Window Cleaning Co. v. Slowuta, 299 N.Y. 286, 288, 86 N.E.2d 750 ).
Ewart's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.