Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

TAPPAN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. WATERBURY, Defendant

ROBERT J. TRAINOR, J.

Motion by plaintiff for an order enjoining the defendant pending the trial of the above-captioned action from using the public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the plaintiff's business so as to destroy plaintiff's custom, credit and profits, is granted.

Defendant, after certain apparent dissatisfaction with an automobile purchased from plaintiff, parked said vehicle in front of plaintiff's place of business on November 28, 1970, for about three hours between 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. with a sign approximately 3 feet by 4 feet which read as follows:

"THIS IS A 1970 VOLVO, PURCHASED FROM TAPPAN MOTORS, OVER 30 REPAIRS STILL NOT FIXED. FOR INFORMATION CALL 235-1523"

Plaintiff claims the lettering could be viewed from a distance in excess of 100 feet. It is the contention of plaintiff that such demonstration in front of its business establishment was responsible for customers not entering and that the defendant's actions were designed expressly to cause this damage to its business. The right to carry on a lawful business without obstruction is a property right, and acts committed without just cause or excuse which interfere with the carrying on of plaintiff's business or destroy its custom, its credit or its profits, do an irreparable injury and thus authorize the issuance of an injunction. ( Saxon Motor Sales v. Torino, 166 Misc. 863. )

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TAPPAN MOTORS, INC. v. WATERBURY
(Jan 18, 1971)