Nesis v. Paris International Lighting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nesis v. Paris International Lighting, Inc.

184 A.D.2d 485, 587 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8604

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 30, 1992·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about December 19, 1991, which granted, inter alia, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant corporation [486] from transferring any assets, and which appointed a receiver, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities in his favor (Primo Enter. v Bachner, 148 AD2d 350, 351). Given the plaintiff’s showing of a likelihood of waste by the defendant corporation and the demonstration of a fraudulent transfer of assets, it was, in the circumstances, not an abuse of discretion to have granted injunctive relief (see, R & J Bottling Co. v Rosenthal, 40 AD2d 911), or to have appointed a receiver (see, Nelson v Nelson, 99 AD2d 917).

We have reviewed defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about December 19, 1991, which granted, inter alia, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant corporation [486] from transferring any assets, and which appointed a receiver, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities in his favor (Primo Enter. v Bachner, 148 AD2d 350, 351). Given the plaintiff’s showing of a likelihood of waste by the defendant corporation and the demonstration of a fraudulent transfer of assets, it was, in the circumstances, not an abuse of discretion to have granted injunctive relief (see, R & J Bottling Co. v Rosenthal, 40 AD2d 911), or to have appointed a receiver (see, Nelson v Nelson, 99 AD2d 917).

We have reviewed defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Nesis v. Paris International Lighting, Inc., 184 A.D.2d 485, 587 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

184 A.D.2d 485 (Nesis v. Paris International Lighting, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related