Boyle v. Pogs Construction Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Boyle v. Pogs Construction Corp.

74 Misc. 2d 307, 344 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 Misc. 2d 307 (Boyle v. Pogs Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyle v. Pogs Construction Corp., 74 Misc. 2d 307, 344 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Leoít D. Lazer, J.

Plaintiffs, vendees under a contract for the purchase of a new home to be constructed by the defendant, have instituted an action for specific performance, alleging breach of contract. Defendant has served a 30-day notice upon plaintiffs to vacate other premises owned by the defendant and made available to them as purchasers pending delivery of the new home. Plaintiffs have responded by moving in the specific performance action to stay and enjoin the builder from taking further steps to evict them from their temporary home. Both parties alleged that the other is in breach of the underlying contract of conveyance. The threshold issue on this motion is whether the court may enjoin the threatened eviction proceeding.

It is a well-settled principle that the danger of impending judicial proceedings is not an injury justifying an injunction (Wolfe v. Burke, 56 N. Y. 115) and our Department has reversed a preliminary injunction granted to a tenant on facts which could have served as a defense to a summary proceeding (Geed v. Braunsdorf, 277 App. Div. 1001; see, also, Kienle v. Gretsch Realty Co., 133 App. Div. 391; Einhorn v. Perma Realty Corp., 207 Misc. 1123).

Plaintiffs may raise defendant’s alleged breach of contract as an equitable defense if a .summary proceeding is instituted (Beal Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 743); move to consolidate such a proceeding with this action (CPLB 602, subd [b]); or they may seek a stay in the forum in which the summary proceeding is actually commenced (CPLB 2201). They may not obtain here the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction (Meda Int. v. Salzman, 24 A D 2d 710).

First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center (28 A D 2d 873), cited by plaintiffs, was modified by the Court of Appeals, which reversed so much of the order of the Appellate Division as preserved the lease and enjoined the landlord from instituting summary proceedings to evict the tenant (21 N Y 2d 630),

The stay is vacated and the motion is denied.

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

Leoít D. Lazer, J.

Plaintiffs, vendees under a contract for the purchase of a new home to be constructed by the defendant, have instituted an action for specific performance, alleging breach of contract. Defendant has served a 30-day notice upon plaintiffs to vacate other premises owned by the defendant and made available to them as purchasers pending delivery of the new home. Plaintiffs have responded by moving in the specific performance action to stay and enjoin the builder from taking further steps to evict them from their temporary home. Both parties alleged that the other is in breach of the underlying contract of conveyance. The threshold issue on this motion is whether the court may enjoin the threatened eviction proceeding.

It is a well-settled principle that the danger of impending judicial proceedings is not an injury justifying an injunction (Wolfe v. Burke, 56 N. Y. 115) and our Department has reversed a preliminary injunction granted to a tenant on facts which could have served as a defense to a summary proceeding (Geed v. Braunsdorf, 277 App. Div. 1001; see, also, Kienle v. Gretsch Realty Co., 133 App. Div. 391; Einhorn v. Perma Realty Corp., 207 Misc. 1123).

Plaintiffs may raise defendant’s alleged breach of contract as an equitable defense if a .summary proceeding is instituted (Beal Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 743); move to consolidate such a proceeding with this action (CPLB 602, subd [b]); or they may seek a stay in the forum in which the summary proceeding is actually commenced (CPLB 2201). They may not obtain here the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction (Meda Int. v. Salzman, 24 A D 2d 710).

First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center (28 A D 2d 873), cited by plaintiffs, was modified by the Court of Appeals, which reversed so much of the order of the Appellate Division as preserved the lease and enjoined the landlord from instituting summary proceedings to evict the tenant (21 N Y 2d 630),

The stay is vacated and the motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Misc. 2d 307, 344 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyle-v-pogs-construction-corp-nysupct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack