Wooster Group, Inc. v. Schechner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wooster Group, Inc. v. Schechner

183 A.D.2d 504, 583 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870

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

DecidedMay 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.D.2d 504 (Wooster Group, Inc. v. Schechner) 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

Wooster Group, Inc. v. Schechner, 183 A.D.2d 504, 583 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.) entered March 4, 1991, which inter alia, requires plaintiff’s counsel to hold the stock certificate representing shares of stock in the cooperative corporation and the proprietary lease in escrow, unanimously modified to delete that portion of the order and to direct counsel to release to plaintiff said documents forthwith, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

In this action for specific performance, the court granted plaintiff summary judgment acknowledging plaintiff’s rights in certain shares of stock and a proprietary lease but required that said shares and lease be held in escrow by plaintiff’s attorney pending resolution of defendant’s counterclaim. However, defendant did not request or demonstrate the requirements necessary for prejudgment attachment (CPLR 6201; see, Werner v Werner, 101 Misc 2d 414, 419-420). Nor did defendant request or show entitlement to a preliminary injunction (CPLR 6301), especially where, as here, defendant "can obtain adequate compensation by invoking the legal damage remedy” (Poling Transp. Corp. v A & P Tanker Corp., 84 AD2d 796, 797). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.) entered March 4, 1991, which inter alia, requires plaintiff’s counsel to hold the stock certificate representing shares of stock in the cooperative corporation and the proprietary lease in escrow, unanimously modified to delete that portion of the order and to direct counsel to release to plaintiff said documents forthwith, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

In this action for specific performance, the court granted plaintiff summary judgment acknowledging plaintiff’s rights in certain shares of stock and a proprietary lease but required that said shares and lease be held in escrow by plaintiff’s attorney pending resolution of defendant’s counterclaim. However, defendant did not request or demonstrate the requirements necessary for prejudgment attachment (CPLR 6201; see, Werner v Werner, 101 Misc 2d 414, 419-420). Nor did defendant request or show entitlement to a preliminary injunction (CPLR 6301), especially where, as here, defendant "can obtain adequate compensation by invoking the legal damage remedy” (Poling Transp. Corp. v A & P Tanker Corp., 84 AD2d 796, 797). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 504, 583 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooster-group-inc-v-schechner-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack