Peyton v. PWV Acquisition LLC
Opinion
The evidence demonstrated that defendants attempted to modify or substitute an ancillary parking service to which the plaintiffs were entitled, without requisite approval from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The [447] landlord defendants (PWV defendants) nonetheless entered into a contract to sell the subject open-air parking lot for development purposes to defendant Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, prior to obtaining the requisite approval from the DHCR. In light of the foregoing, and the standard delays that were shown to be attendant to applications by defendants for regulatory approval of proposed building construction, the $75,000 undertaking required by the court, pending final resolution of plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief, was rationally related to defendants’ potential damages should the preliminary injunction later prove to have been unwarranted (see generally 3636 Greystone Owners v Greystone Bldg., 4 AD3d 122, 123 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, AbdusSalaam and Feinman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
101 A.D.3d 446 (Peyton v. PWV Acquisition LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.