IP International Products, Inc. v. 275 Canal Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

IP International Products, Inc. v. 275 Canal Street Associates

139 A.D.3d 464, 29 N.Y.S.3d 795

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 10, 2016·No. 1101N 652369/15·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s application for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for a Yellowstone injunction, because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a willingness to cure (see Cemco Rests. v Ten Park Ave. Tenants Corp., 135 AD2d 461, 463 [1st Dept 1987]; Linmont Realty v Vitocarl, Inc., 147 AD2d 618, 620 [2d Dept 1989]). Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary are belied by its continued violation of the alterations provision of the lease, even as it purports to “cure” defects.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s application for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for a Yellowstone injunction, because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a willingness to cure (see Cemco Rests. v Ten Park Ave. Tenants Corp., 135 AD2d 461, 463 [1st Dept 1987]; Linmont Realty v Vitocarl, Inc., 147 AD2d 618, 620 [2d Dept 1989]). Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary are belied by its continued violation of the alterations provision of the lease, even as it purports to “cure” defects.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

IP International Products, Inc. v. 275 Canal Street Associates, 139 A.D.3d 464, 29 N.Y.S.3d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

139 A.D.3d 464 (IP International Products, Inc. v. 275 Canal Street Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related