Thompson v. Topsoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Topsoe

202 A.D.2d 183, 608 N.Y.S.2d 208

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 183 (Thompson v. Topsoe) 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

Thompson v. Topsoe, 202 A.D.2d 183, 608 N.Y.S.2d 208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered on or about September 10, 1993, denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs’ claim that a loan to them was made by defendant Topsoe and that the shares of ERC sent to Topsoe collateralized this loan is not likely to succeed on the merits. The writings exchanged between the parties clearly demonstrate that a sale was both contemplated and consummated and that plaintiffs received $400,000 for a block of 100,000 shares of ERC. Thus, the IAS Court properly denied the preliminary injunction and, inferentially, found insufficient irreparable harm to grant the injunction. Additionally, we add that since ERC’s stock is subject to market fluctuation, the equities preponderate in favor of the party which demonstrates a clear right to the stock, in this case, defendants, and therefore a preliminary injunction would be inappropriate.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered on or about September 10, 1993, denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs’ claim that a loan to them was made by defendant Topsoe and that the shares of ERC sent to Topsoe collateralized this loan is not likely to succeed on the merits. The writings exchanged between the parties clearly demonstrate that a sale was both contemplated and consummated and that plaintiffs received $400,000 for a block of 100,000 shares of ERC. Thus, the IAS Court properly denied the preliminary injunction and, inferentially, found insufficient irreparable harm to grant the injunction. Additionally, we add that since ERC’s stock is subject to market fluctuation, the equities preponderate in favor of the party which demonstrates a clear right to the stock, in this case, defendants, and therefore a preliminary injunction would be inappropriate.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 183, 608 N.Y.S.2d 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-topsoe-nyappdiv-1994.