7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu

235 A.D.2d 236, 652 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 9, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 236 (7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu, 235 A.D.2d 236, 652 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York [237]*237County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1996, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction entered April 14, 1995, denied plaintiffs’ application for an undertaking, and held in abeyance plaintiffs’ application to hold defendants in contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in narrowing the scope of the preliminary injunction (see, 220 AD2d 215). The hearing court aptly recognized that, in view of the brief marketability of the type of product that defendants had been completely barred from selling and manufacturing, the breadth and duration of the original preliminary injunction would improperly have had the effect of a permanent injunction.

In light of the hearing court’s justified reservations concerning the proof of defendants’ alleged violations of the initial temporary restraining order (see, Coronet Capital Co. v Spodek, 202 AD2d 20, 29), it was not inappropriate to defer the resolution of defendants’ contempt.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York [237]*237County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1996, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction entered April 14, 1995, denied plaintiffs’ application for an undertaking, and held in abeyance plaintiffs’ application to hold defendants in contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in narrowing the scope of the preliminary injunction (see, 220 AD2d 215). The hearing court aptly recognized that, in view of the brief marketability of the type of product that defendants had been completely barred from selling and manufacturing, the breadth and duration of the original preliminary injunction would improperly have had the effect of a permanent injunction.

In light of the hearing court’s justified reservations concerning the proof of defendants’ alleged violations of the initial temporary restraining order (see, Coronet Capital Co. v Spodek, 202 AD2d 20, 29), it was not inappropriate to defer the resolution of defendants’ contempt.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 236, 652 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/7th-sense-inc-v-liu-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack