| S.P.Q.R. Co., Inc. v United Rockland Stairs, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09771 [57 AD3d 642] |
| December 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| mS.P.Q.R. Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v United Rockland Stairs, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Reginald H. Rutishauser of
counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., from trespassing on a certain disputed parcel of real property and to compel that defendant to remove a fence from that property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated May 21, 2007, as granted the motion of the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., for a preliminary injunction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., for a preliminary injunction (see CPLR 6301, 6312 [c]; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 [1988]; Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]). While it is true the plaintiffs showed the existence of at least a factual question as to the true ownership of the disputed parcel, that was not, under the circumstances of this case, a sufficient reason to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby preserving the status quo (see Kelley v Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 596 [2007]; Stockley v Gorelik, 24 AD3d 535 [2005]; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604 [2004]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.