Tag 380, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tag 380, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

290 A.D.2d 404, 737 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 404 (Tag 380, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.) 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

Tag 380, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 290 A.D.2d 404, 737 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 20, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction upon condition that it file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 and held plaintiffs cross motion to punish defendant for contempt in abeyance pending trial of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction, since defendant established that it had a commercial lease, received a notice of default from plaintiff/landlord, made its application for Yellowstone relief prior to the termination of the lease and had the desire and ability to cure the alleged default by means short of vacating the premises (see, First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 NY2d 630; and see, Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514). In light of the conflicting allegations as to the type of alterations defendant was performing at the premises and the permits obtained by defendant therefor, an injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo until a trial can be [405]*405conducted on the merits, at which time the parties’ additional contentions regarding each other’s “unclean hands” and bad faith may properly be resolved (see, Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758). Concur — Williams, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 20, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction upon condition that it file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 and held plaintiffs cross motion to punish defendant for contempt in abeyance pending trial of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction, since defendant established that it had a commercial lease, received a notice of default from plaintiff/landlord, made its application for Yellowstone relief prior to the termination of the lease and had the desire and ability to cure the alleged default by means short of vacating the premises (see, First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 NY2d 630; and see, Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514). In light of the conflicting allegations as to the type of alterations defendant was performing at the premises and the permits obtained by defendant therefor, an injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo until a trial can be [405]*405conducted on the merits, at which time the parties’ additional contentions regarding each other’s “unclean hands” and bad faith may properly be resolved (see, Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758). Concur — Williams, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 404, 737 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tag-380-llc-v-sprint-spectrum-lp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack