Governale v. Porsche-Audi of Bay Ridge, Inc.

97 A.D.2d 457, 467 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20049
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 457 (Governale v. Porsche-Audi of Bay Ridge, 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
Governale v. Porsche-Audi of Bay Ridge, Inc., 97 A.D.2d 457, 467 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract and to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated April 21, 1983, which denied his application for a preliminary injunction. Appeal dismissed, with costs. Special Term denied plaintiff’s application for an order preliminarily enjoining defendants from transferring, assigning, selling, or otherwise disposing of a certain Porsche model 944 automobile which had been recently delivered to them. Subsequent to the issuance of Special Term’s order, plaintiff did not obtain, from either Special Term or this court, a temporary restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5518. Plaintiff’s filing of a notice of appeal from the order did not effect such relief automatically (Dworetzky v Ball, 50 AD2d 615, mot for lv to app den 38 NY2d 708; Deacon’s Bench v Hoffman, 88 AD2d 734). Thus, as defendants were not enjoined from selling the automobile, and, in fact, did sell the automobile, the propriety of the denial of plaintiff’s application is a moot issue. As no controversy remains with respect to the order appealed from, the appeal is dismissed as moot (Nassau Trust Co. v Filderman, 52 AD2d 588; City of Binghamton v Monserrate, 71 AD2d 745, mot for lv to app den 48 NY2d 611). Were we to have decided the appeal on its merits, the order would have been affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Pridhodko
31 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster
128 A.D.2d 28 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Spector v. Berman
119 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Carr v. Board of Education of the Greenburgh Central School District No. 7
114 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 457, 467 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/governale-v-porsche-audi-of-bay-ridge-inc-nyappdiv-1983.