Franco v. 172 E Holdings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franco v. 172 E Holdings

110 A.D.3d 636, 974 N.Y.S.2d 241

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 1, 2013, which granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, and set an undertaking in the nominal amount of $100, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the relief were not granted, and that the equities weigh in his favor (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839 [2005]). The amount of the required undertaking is appropriate (see Pouncy v Dudley, 27 AD3d 633, 635 [2d Dept 2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30214(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 1, 2013, which granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, and set an undertaking in the nominal amount of $100, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the relief were not granted, and that the equities weigh in his favor (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839 [2005]). The amount of the required undertaking is appropriate (see Pouncy v Dudley, 27 AD3d 633, 635 [2d Dept 2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30214(U).]

Franco v. 172 E Holdings, 110 A.D.3d 636, 974 N.Y.S.2d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

110 A.D.3d 636 (Franco v. 172 E Holdings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related