Finesod v. Uzan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finesod v. Uzan

182 A.D.2d 571, 582 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6364

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 571 (Finesod v. Uzan) 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

Finesod v. Uzan, 182 A.D.2d 571, 582 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 3, 1991, which, inter alia, directed forfeiture of plaintiffs undertaking, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The undertaking in issue was posted in connection with a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from transferring the shares allocated to the apartment pending determination of plaintiffs right to have such shares specifically transferred to him. When defendant sponsor acknowledged plaintiffs right to the shares, plaintiffs refusal at that time to execute the agreement he had been seeking to specifically enforce by way of this action was the functional equivalent of a discontinuance of the action without defendants’ consent and a determination that he was not entitled to the injunction (Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 404). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 3, 1991, which, inter alia, directed forfeiture of plaintiffs undertaking, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The undertaking in issue was posted in connection with a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from transferring the shares allocated to the apartment pending determination of plaintiffs right to have such shares specifically transferred to him. When defendant sponsor acknowledged plaintiffs right to the shares, plaintiffs refusal at that time to execute the agreement he had been seeking to specifically enforce by way of this action was the functional equivalent of a discontinuance of the action without defendants’ consent and a determination that he was not entitled to the injunction (Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 404). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 571, 582 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finesod-v-uzan-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack