Romance Bridals, Inc. v. 1385 Broadway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romance Bridals, Inc. v. 1385 Broadway Co.

43 A.D.2d 544, 349 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 544 (Romance Bridals, Inc. v. 1385 Broadway 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

Romance Bridals, Inc. v. 1385 Broadway Co., 43 A.D.2d 544, 349 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered oh July 25, 1973, granting plaintiffs’ motion to the extent of preliminarily, enjoining defendants from prosecuting summary proceedings pending adjudication of this class action for a declaratory judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the' f^ets and in' the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiffs’ claim, that they were induced to enter into renewal leases containing a contested escalation clause, at best, creates a disputed fact issue. Temporary injunctive relief should not be granted unless both a clear legal right to the relief sought and irreparable injury are shown (De Candido v. Young Stars, 10 A D 2d 922). Plaintiffs, in this class action, have not demonstrated the existence of either of these prerequisites. “Furthermore, the causes alleged may not be maintained in class form. Obviously, the complaints of the plaintiffs are not shown to have been common to others affected [citing cases] ”. (Tuvin v. 10 E. 30 Corp., 38 A D 2d 895, 896.) Certainly a sweeping preliminary injunction herein, based on affidavits from but three of 51 plaintiffs, is unwarranted. (See CPLR 6312, subd. [a].) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered oh July 25, 1973, granting plaintiffs’ motion to the extent of preliminarily, enjoining defendants from prosecuting summary proceedings pending adjudication of this class action for a declaratory judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the' f^ets and in' the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiffs’ claim, that they were induced to enter into renewal leases containing a contested escalation clause, at best, creates a disputed fact issue. Temporary injunctive relief should not be granted unless both a clear legal right to the relief sought and irreparable injury are shown (De Candido v. Young Stars, 10 A D 2d 922). Plaintiffs, in this class action, have not demonstrated the existence of either of these prerequisites. “Furthermore, the causes alleged may not be maintained in class form. Obviously, the complaints of the plaintiffs are not shown to have been common to others affected [citing cases] ”. (Tuvin v. 10 E. 30 Corp., 38 A D 2d 895, 896.) Certainly a sweeping preliminary injunction herein, based on affidavits from but three of 51 plaintiffs, is unwarranted. (See CPLR 6312, subd. [a].) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 544, 349 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romance-bridals-inc-v-1385-broadway-co-nyappdiv-1973.