Globe-Mar Assocs., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 99 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Globe-Mar Assocs., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 99 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Guice-Mills v. Forbes (nysupct, 2008-09-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guice-Mills v. Forbes
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2008 · confidence medium
Seltzer v Bayer, 272 AD2d 263, 264 [1st Dept 2000] [allegations of vandalism (tossing lighted cigarettes and eggs into plaintiff’s yard) and threats of vandalism (threatening to paint a swastika on the front of plaintiffs home) not enough to be held as outrageous conduct]; Zimmerman v Carmack, 292 AD2d 601 [2d Dept 2002] [allegations of excessive noise and intentional accumulation of dog waste, rotting food, and garbage did not impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but rather stated a claim for trespass]; Owen v Leventritt, 174 AD2d 471 [1st Dept 1991] [threat ma…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berisic v. Winckelman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
“There are three essential elements of the tort of abuse of process: first, there must be regularly issued process, civil or criminal, compelling the performance or forbearance of some prescribed act; second, the person activating the process must be moved by a purpose to harm without that which has been traditionally described as economic or social excuse or justification; and third, the defendant must be seeking some collateral advantage or corresponding detriment to [the] plaintiff which is outside the legitimate ends of the process” (James v Saltsman, 99 AD2d 797, 797-798 [1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Halperin v. Salvan
N.Y. App. Div. · 1986 · confidence medium
A complaint which purports to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress need not plead special damages” (James v Saltsman, 99 AD2d 797, 798 [2d Dept 1984]; see also, Zausner v Fotochrome, Inc., 18 AD2d 649 [1st Dept 1962]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Globe-Mar Associates, Inc.
v.
City of White Plains, and Melville Industrial Associates, Intervenor-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 21, 1984.
99 A.D.2d 797
Published

In an action to quiet title to real property, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered January 30,1984, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term was correct in holding that on the facts presently before it, plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (see Lowe vDi Filippo, 12 AD2d 788; Kent v Winn, 30 AD2d 703; Gottfried v State of New York, 23 Mise 2d 733, mod on other grounds 14 AD2d 612, affd 11 NY2d 1084). In the absence of such proof, Special Term properly refused to grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 (see Albini v Solork Assoc., 37 AD2d 835). Our affirmance of Special Term’s order, insofar as appealed from, however, is not intended to express any opinion with regard to the ultimate result which should be reached after trial. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.