Wyndham Co. v. Wyndham Hotel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wyndham Co. v. Wyndham Hotel Co.

236 A.D.2d 220, 653 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 801

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 220 (Wyndham Co. v. Wyndham Hotel Co.) 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

Wyndham Co. v. Wyndham Hotel Co., 236 A.D.2d 220, 653 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about September 3, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion to modify a temporary restraining order previously issued [221]*221by another Justice of the same court, who, upon granting defendants’ motion for a trial preference, referred plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to the trial court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in continuing the existing temporary restraining order, albeit with modification not to defendants’ satisfaction, pending its issuance of a decision on the merits. On any view of the matter, the status quo should be maintained until judgment in the action is rendered (see, Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 405). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about September 3, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion to modify a temporary restraining order previously issued [221]*221by another Justice of the same court, who, upon granting defendants’ motion for a trial preference, referred plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to the trial court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in continuing the existing temporary restraining order, albeit with modification not to defendants’ satisfaction, pending its issuance of a decision on the merits. On any view of the matter, the status quo should be maintained until judgment in the action is rendered (see, Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397, 405). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 220, 653 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyndham-co-v-wyndham-hotel-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack