JH Parking Corp. v. East 112th Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JH Parking Corp. v. East 112th Realty Corp.

298 A.D.2d 258, 748 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10042

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 258 (JH Parking Corp. v. East 112th Realty Corp.) 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

JH Parking Corp. v. East 112th Realty Corp., 298 A.D.2d 258, 748 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered August 20, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record discloses that plaintiff did not timely seek injunctive relief since the order to show cause that effected a temporary restraining order and tolled the cure period, pending the hearing on the Yellowstone application, was signed by the motion court after the cure period had ended and after service of the notice of termination (see Daashur Assoc. v December Artists Apt. Corp., 226 AD2d 114, 114-115). The motion therefore could have been denied as untimely (see Weaver v Essex Owners Corp., 235 AD2d 369, 370, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 89 NY2d 1073). In any event, the record supports the motion court’s conclusion that plaintiff would not or could not cure the alleged default by means short of vacating the premises, and therefore could not establish its entitlement to Yellowstone relief (see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514). Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered August 20, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record discloses that plaintiff did not timely seek injunctive relief since the order to show cause that effected a temporary restraining order and tolled the cure period, pending the hearing on the Yellowstone application, was signed by the motion court after the cure period had ended and after service of the notice of termination (see Daashur Assoc. v December Artists Apt. Corp., 226 AD2d 114, 114-115). The motion therefore could have been denied as untimely (see Weaver v Essex Owners Corp., 235 AD2d 369, 370, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 89 NY2d 1073). In any event, the record supports the motion court’s conclusion that plaintiff would not or could not cure the alleged default by means short of vacating the premises, and therefore could not establish its entitlement to Yellowstone relief (see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514). Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 258, 748 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jh-parking-corp-v-east-112th-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack