Republic of Croatia v. Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Republic of Croatia v. Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement

232 A.D.2d 216, 648 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 216 (Republic of Croatia v. Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement) 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

Republic of Croatia v. Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement, 232 A.D.2d 216, 648 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 27, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to the extent of finding defendant entitled to damages by reason of the injunctive relief previously obtained by plaintiffs in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Defendant was properly found to be entitled to damages by virtue of the jury’s verdict after trial on the merits in its favor, which necessarily established that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction against defendant (CPLR 6312 [b]; Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 405-406). In light of the improper deprivation of the antiquities at issue here, an award of interest is necessary to indemnify defendant for its losses (Subin v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 12 AD2d 49, 52-53; Flamm v Noble, 296 NY 262, 267-268). Defendant is also entitled to counsel fees incurred, not only in relation to the injunction itself, but also in litigating the issues at trial and appeal since they were inseparable from the issues pertaining to the injunction. Indeed, the trial was the only means by which defendant was able to remedy the injunction (see, Granulator Soap Co. v Haddow, 159 App Div 563, 564-565; Andrews v Glenville Woolen Co., 50 NY 282).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, 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 February 27, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to the extent of finding defendant entitled to damages by reason of the injunctive relief previously obtained by plaintiffs in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Defendant was properly found to be entitled to damages by virtue of the jury’s verdict after trial on the merits in its favor, which necessarily established that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction against defendant (CPLR 6312 [b]; Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 405-406). In light of the improper deprivation of the antiquities at issue here, an award of interest is necessary to indemnify defendant for its losses (Subin v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 12 AD2d 49, 52-53; Flamm v Noble, 296 NY 262, 267-268). Defendant is also entitled to counsel fees incurred, not only in relation to the injunction itself, but also in litigating the issues at trial and appeal since they were inseparable from the issues pertaining to the injunction. Indeed, the trial was the only means by which defendant was able to remedy the injunction (see, Granulator Soap Co. v Haddow, 159 App Div 563, 564-565; Andrews v Glenville Woolen Co., 50 NY 282).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 216, 648 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/republic-of-croatia-v-trustee-of-the-marquess-of-northampton-1987-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack