Intercredit Corp. v. Ashkenazy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Intercredit Corp. v. Ashkenazy

192 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 595

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

DecidedApril 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 477 (Intercredit Corp. v. Ashkenazy) 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

Intercredit Corp. v. Ashkenazy, 192 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on or about September 18, 1992, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants-respondents from declaring certain promissory notes in default, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 4, 1993, which, inter alia, denied appellants’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ claim that they will be liable for certain of respondents’ tax obligations if the latter are not enjoined from declaring the notes in default does not appear to have merit, and, even if it did, appellants’ remedy would be for money damages. Appellants’ claim of failure of consideration was properly disregarded in evaluating the merits of their request for injunctive relief since it was first raised only in their reply papers on the motion (Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415). Appellants’ motion to renew was properly denied absent an explanation why the allegations of fraud made therein were not made in the original motion (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Concur — Carro, J. P., 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 (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on or about September 18, 1992, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants-respondents from declaring certain promissory notes in default, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 4, 1993, which, inter alia, denied appellants’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ claim that they will be liable for certain of respondents’ tax obligations if the latter are not enjoined from declaring the notes in default does not appear to have merit, and, even if it did, appellants’ remedy would be for money damages. Appellants’ claim of failure of consideration was properly disregarded in evaluating the merits of their request for injunctive relief since it was first raised only in their reply papers on the motion (Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415). Appellants’ motion to renew was properly denied absent an explanation why the allegations of fraud made therein were not made in the original motion (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 477, 597 N.Y.S.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intercredit-corp-v-ashkenazy-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack