Edgeworth Food Corp. v. Stephenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edgeworth Food Corp. v. Stephenson

53 A.D.2d 588, 385 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232

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

DecidedJune 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 588 (Edgeworth Food Corp. v. Stephenson) 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

Edgeworth Food Corp. v. Stephenson, 53 A.D.2d 588, 385 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 21, 1976, denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, is unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Plaintiff has failed to show a clear right to the drastic remedy of preliminary injunction. (Park Terrace Caterers v McDonough, 9 AD2d 113, 114.) There are questions as to whether time was of the essence in this contract and whether plaintiff was able and willing to perform on the stipulated closing date. Furthermore, the balance of convenience and relative hardship—the harm to plaintiff from denial of the injunction as against the harm to defendant from granting it—does not tip in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant has a contract to sell the business on substantially more favorable terms, which may be lost if preliminary injunction delays the transaction too long. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 21, 1976, denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, is unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Plaintiff has failed to show a clear right to the drastic remedy of preliminary injunction. (Park Terrace Caterers v McDonough, 9 AD2d 113, 114.) There are questions as to whether time was of the essence in this contract and whether plaintiff was able and willing to perform on the stipulated closing date. Furthermore, the balance of convenience and relative hardship—the harm to plaintiff from denial of the injunction as against the harm to defendant from granting it—does not tip in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant has a contract to sell the business on substantially more favorable terms, which may be lost if preliminary injunction delays the transaction too long. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 588, 385 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgeworth-food-corp-v-stephenson-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack