Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance Corp.

24 A.D.3d 308, 805 N.Y.S.2d 824

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 308 (Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance 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

Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance Corp., 24 A.D.3d 308, 805 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 14, 2005, which, in an action to enjoin the sale of cooperative apartments by a secured creditor, denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that plaintiff fails to show an ownership interest in the stock allocated to the subject apartments that is superior to defendant’s security interest therein pledged by her husband as sole owner, and that plaintiff is therefore not likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff also fails to show irreparable injury and a balancing of the equities in her favor (see W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). Indeed, the evidence of irreparable injury and balancing of the equities favors defendant. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 14, 2005, which, in an action to enjoin the sale of cooperative apartments by a secured creditor, denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that plaintiff fails to show an ownership interest in the stock allocated to the subject apartments that is superior to defendant’s security interest therein pledged by her husband as sole owner, and that plaintiff is therefore not likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff also fails to show irreparable injury and a balancing of the equities in her favor (see W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). Indeed, the evidence of irreparable injury and balancing of the equities favors defendant. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 308, 805 N.Y.S.2d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalisch-v-maple-trade-finance-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack