Rattner & Associates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

294 A.D.2d 346, 741 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 346 (Rattner & Associates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) 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
Rattner & Associates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 294 A.D.2d 346, 741 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated June 14, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a preliminary injunction directing the plaintiff to turn over certain funds in its possession.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court had no authority pursuant to CPLR 6301 to order the turn over of disputed funds. The purpose of CPLR 6301 is to preserve the status quo and to prevent dissipation of property which may make a judgment ineffectual (see CPLR 6301; Hicksville Props. v Wollenhaupt, 268 AD2d 407). The status quo in this case is that the plaintiff is holding the disputed funds pending a resolution of the complaint. In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496; Peterson v Corbin, 275 AD2d 35).

[347]*347The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mangovski v. DiMarco
2019 NY Slip Op 6270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Cooper v. Board of White Sands Condominium
89 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Alexandru v. Pappas
68 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Coinmach Corp. v. Alley Pond Owners Corp.
25 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Weinreb Management, LLC v. KBD Management, Inc.
22 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Andre v. City of New York
10 Misc. 3d 361 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Schweizer v. Town of Smithtown
19 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
First Franklin Square Associates, LLC v. Franklin Square Property Account
15 A.D.3d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki
10 A.D.3d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 A.D.2d 346, 741 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rattner-associates-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-2002.