Stuart v. D & D Associates
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | John STUART, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. D & D ASSOCIATES, etc., Defendant-Appellant. |
A.D. Zuckerbrod, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
D.S. Roberts, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, ASCH, KASSAL and WALLACH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 3, 1989, which granted respondent's motion for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The lease between the tenant and defendant-landlord permitted an assignment in the event of a sale of all the assets of the tenant's business, provided the business continued as a going concern conducting substantially the same operation. The tenant sold its assets to plaintiff, but defendant, contending that the tenant had assigned less than all of its assets and that the business was not being conducted in substantially the same manner, served a notice to cure. Plaintiff moved for a Yellowstone injunction, which was granted.
Supreme Court determined that plaintiff met the necessary criteria for a Yellowstone injunction, and we agree. An injunction pursuant to the guidelines of First National Stores, Inc. v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 630, 290 N.Y.S.2d 721, 237 N.E.2d 868 is appropriate to preserve the status quo pending determination of the underlying dispute, without regard to the likelihood of success on the merits, in order to protect a valuable leasehold and prevent the risk of forfeiture (Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 19, 475 N.Y.S.2d 821, 464 N.E.2d 125). A tenant is entitled to a Yellowstone injunction where it has demonstrated that (1) it holds a commercial lease, (2) it has received a notice of default, notice to cure or concrete threat of termination of the lease from the landlord, (3) the application for a temporary restraining order was made and granted prior to the termination of the lease, and (4) it has the desire and ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises (Continental Towers Garage Corp. v. Contowers Associates Ltd. Partnership, 141 A.D.2d 390, 394, 529 N.Y.S.2d 322). Those criteria have been met.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hotel Syracuse, Inc.
...has the desire and ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises. See Stuart v. D & D Associates, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 547, 554 N.Y.S.2d 197 (1st Dept.1990). 7 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) grants exclusive jurisdiction over all property of the debtor and of the estate t......
-
In re Artisanal 2015, LLC
...and ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises. See, e.g., Stuart v. D & D Assocs., Inc., 160 A.D.2d 547, 548, 554 N.Y.S.2d 197 (1st Dep't 1990). If a plaintiff is successful, the Yellowstone injunction will"maintain the status quo so that a commercial t......
-
Saada v. Master Apts. Inc.
...status quo without regard to likelihood of success on merits (Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp., supra; Stuart v. D & D Associates, 160 A.D.2d 547, 554 N.Y.S.2d 197 [1st Dept.1990]. It has also been used to prevent an acceleration of an entire debt where a forfeiture may be an unconscionabl......
-
Fishkill Health Related Center, Inc. v. Van DeWater & Van DeWater
...the premises (First Natl. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 N.Y.2d 630, 290 N.Y.S.2d 721, 237 N.E.2d 868; Stuart v. D & D Assocs., 160 A.D.2d 547, 554 N.Y.S.2d 197). Here, the evidence establishes that FHRC told its attorneys that it could not raise the $120,000 at any time "in the ......