Ciment v. Spantran, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciment v. Spantran, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 8177, 155 A.D.3d 494, 65 N.Y.S.3d 26

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

Docket655680/16 4992 4991

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8177 (Ciment v. Spantran, Inc.) 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

Ciment v. Spantran, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 8177, 155 A.D.3d 494, 65 N.Y.S.3d 26 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 10, 2017, and an order, same court and Justice, entered April 20, 2017, which, respectively, granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing defendants from taking certain corporate governance actions pending a hearing, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action for declaratory judgment turns on the applicability of the shareholders agreement of nonparty Tekademic, Inc., now known as Morningside Translations, Inc., to the defendants. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants are subject to the shareholders agreement, and the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish otherwise.

Moreover, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his declaratory judgment claim. That the facts are in dispute is not conclusive (Barbes Rest. Inc. v ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2016]). Plaintiff also established that he will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and that the balance of the equities weigh in his favor (id. at 432). Defendants have not shown that they would be harmed by maintaining the status quo pending litigation of the merits of plaintiff’s claim (Dong-Pyo Yang v 75 Rockefeller Café Corp., 50 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Tom, Webber, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 10, 2017, and an order, same court and Justice, entered April 20, 2017, which, respectively, granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing defendants from taking certain corporate governance actions pending a hearing, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action for declaratory judgment turns on the applicability of the shareholders agreement of nonparty Tekademic, Inc., now known as Morningside Translations, Inc., to the defendants. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants are subject to the shareholders agreement, and the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish otherwise.

Moreover, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his declaratory judgment claim. That the facts are in dispute is not conclusive (Barbes Rest. Inc. v ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2016]). Plaintiff also established that he will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and that the balance of the equities weigh in his favor (id. at 432). Defendants have not shown that they would be harmed by maintaining the status quo pending litigation of the merits of plaintiff’s claim (Dong-Pyo Yang v 75 Rockefeller Café Corp., 50 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Tom, Webber, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8177, 155 A.D.3d 494, 65 N.Y.S.3d 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciment-v-spantran-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack