Evans v. Santisi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Santisi

256 A.D.2d 91, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13089

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 91 (Evans v. Santisi) 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

Evans v. Santisi, 256 A.D.2d 91, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered August 25, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting payments by the Dissolution Committee of defendant law firm to its shareholders and for the appointment of a receiver to administer the winding down of the firm’s affairs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The judicial relief requested by plaintiff is foreclosed by the mandatory alternative dispute resolution provisions in the parties’ October 30, 1997 Dissolution Agreement. Moreover, even if the parties’ agreement posed no impediment to the relief sought by plaintiff, such relief would still be unavailable to plaintiff. As the motion court observed, plaintiff otherwise failed to establish the requisites for the grant of a preliminary injunction (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862) and did not demonstrate the need for the appointment of a receiver to oversee the winding down of the dissolved law firm’s affairs (see, Mandel v Grunfeld, 111 AD2d 668). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered August 25, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting payments by the Dissolution Committee of defendant law firm to its shareholders and for the appointment of a receiver to administer the winding down of the firm’s affairs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The judicial relief requested by plaintiff is foreclosed by the mandatory alternative dispute resolution provisions in the parties’ October 30, 1997 Dissolution Agreement. Moreover, even if the parties’ agreement posed no impediment to the relief sought by plaintiff, such relief would still be unavailable to plaintiff. As the motion court observed, plaintiff otherwise failed to establish the requisites for the grant of a preliminary injunction (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862) and did not demonstrate the need for the appointment of a receiver to oversee the winding down of the dissolved law firm’s affairs (see, Mandel v Grunfeld, 111 AD2d 668). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 91, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-santisi-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack