Schlosser v. United Presbyterian Home at Syosset, Inc.

56 A.D.2d 615, 391 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 615 (Schlosser v. United Presbyterian Home at Syosset, Inc.) 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
Schlosser v. United Presbyterian Home at Syosset, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 615, 391 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to declare that, pursuant to certain agreements, defendant is precluded from raising the rents payable under the terms of those agreements, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 27, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from increasing such rental charges pending the outcome of the trial. Order modified by adding thereto directions that (1) all discovery proceedings be completed by March 15, 1977, (2) plaintiffs shall immediately file a note of issue and pay the cost thereof and (3) the trial of the action commence on April 4, 1977. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In the event any of these conditions are not complied with, either party may apply for further relief as advised. Although we have grave doubts regarding the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on the merits, they have demonstrated that if a preliminary injunction is not granted, any subsequent judgment might be rendered ineffectual. Many of the plaintiffs, all of whom are senior citizens, cannot afford the scheduled rent increase and have no alternative residence to avail themselves of during the pendency of the action. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo; Special Term did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to the relief requested (see Blake v Biscardi, 52 AD2d 834; Flynn v Levesque, 43 AD2d 840). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Campbell Apartment, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
53 Misc. 3d 282 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Council of New York v. Giuliani
183 Misc. 2d 799 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
Republic of Lebanon v. Sotheby's
167 A.D.2d 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
163 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Abed v. Zach Associates
124 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
McLaughlin v. Nolan
114 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Roberts v. Selzak
89 A.D.2d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Giordano v. Grand Prix Sales, Service, Restoration Co.
113 Misc. 2d 395 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Wainer v. Village of Ellenville
76 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Blair v. Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America
106 Misc. 2d 1018 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Community Board 3 v. State
101 Misc. 2d 189 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
Di Costanzo v. Court Tower Corp.
96 Misc. 2d 1009 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Town of Brookhaven v. Monster Restaurant, Inc.
61 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Shang v. Silvian
60 A.D.2d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A.D.2d 615, 391 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlosser-v-united-presbyterian-home-at-syosset-inc-nyappdiv-1977.