Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Richard M.H. THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Haldor TOPSOE, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about June 25, 1996, which, in a declaratory judgment action concerning whether certain stock was pledged by plaintiffs to defendants-appellants as collateral for a loan or sold outright, denied appellants' motion to ascertain the damages they sustained by reason of a temporary restraining order enjoining defendant transfer agent and persons acting in concert with it from transferring registration of the stock, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion was properly denied on the ground that once the temporary restraining order was vacated, the court was without authority to amend the undertaking, which named only the transfer agent as indemnitee, nunc pro tunc to interpolate a new condition, add an intended party, or otherwise vary its terms (American Exch. Natl. Bank v. Goubert, 210 N.Y. 421, 426, 104 N.E. 928; Quandt's Wholesale Distribs. v. Giardino, 89 A.D.2d 669, 452 N.Y.S.2d 329). Absent proof of malice, not asserted here, there is no common-law or statutory right to recover damages sustained as a result of an improperly issued preliminary injunction; the right, rather, is contractual in nature, based on the undertaking (see, Honeywell v. Technical Bldg. Servs., 103 A.D.2d 433, 434, 480 N.Y.S.2d 627). Thus, a party on whose behalf an undertaking is not posted cannot recover thereon, even though that party opposed the injunction and is the only party susceptible to sustaining a loss by reason of its issuance (cf., id., at 434-435, 480 N.Y.S.2d 627).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 04, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)