South Bay Center, Inc. v. York Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

South Bay Center, Inc. v. York Associates, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 759, 269 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577

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

DecidedApril 4, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 759 (South Bay Center, Inc. v. York Associates, 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

South Bay Center, Inc. v. York Associates, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 759, 269 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment and other relief, in which the complaint had been dismissed and judgment had been awarded to defendant on its counterclaim, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 19, 1965, which, on defendant’s motion to ascertain the damages sustained by it by reason of the issuance against it of a preliminary injunction in the aetion (CPLR 6315), determined that defendant had sustained no damages. Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the holding at Special Term that defendant sustained no damage by virtue of the issuance of the preliminary injunction. We find additionally that, had the injunction not been issued, defendant (a landlord) -would not necessarily have sooner regained possession of the property involved. Had it commenced a summary proceeding against its, tenant (the plaintiff), such proceeding might well have been consolidated with this action. Hence, it cannot be held that damage resulted to defendant solely by reason of the issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment and other relief, in which the complaint had been dismissed and judgment had been awarded to defendant on its counterclaim, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 19, 1965, which, on defendant’s motion to ascertain the damages sustained by it by reason of the issuance against it of a preliminary injunction in the aetion (CPLR 6315), determined that defendant had sustained no damages. Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the holding at Special Term that defendant sustained no damage by virtue of the issuance of the preliminary injunction. We find additionally that, had the injunction not been issued, defendant (a landlord) -would not necessarily have sooner regained possession of the property involved. Had it commenced a summary proceeding against its, tenant (the plaintiff), such proceeding might well have been consolidated with this action. Hence, it cannot be held that damage resulted to defendant solely by reason of the issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 759, 269 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-bay-center-inc-v-york-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1966.