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.
Subudh R. AMIN, appellant, v. CAROUSEL FOODS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to compel the defendant Carousel Foods of America, Inc., to issue stock certificates to the plaintiff representing five percent ownership in the company, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 11, 1999, which, inter alia, denied his motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants and nonparty Gregg Steinhauser from proceeding to arbitration and to compel issuance of the stock certificates.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant Carousel Foods of America, Inc. (hereinafter Carousel) to issue stock certificates to him representing five percent ownership in that company. Although the underlying agreement between Carousel and the plaintiff provided that Carousel would issue company stock to the plaintiff, it is ambiguous as to what type or class of stock the plaintiff was to receive. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff specific performance of that portion of the agreement (see, Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v. S & M Enters., 67 N.Y.2d 186, 501 N.Y.S.2d 628, 492 N.E.2d 756; see also, Studio 54 Disco v. Pee Dee Jay Amusement Corp., 81 A.D.2d 911, 439 N.Y.S.2d 395; cf., Middlebury Off. Park Ltd. Partnership v. General Datacomm Indus., 248 A.D.2d 313, 670 N.Y.S.2d 482).
The court also properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to preliminarily enjoin the defendants and nonparty Gregg Steinhauser from proceeding to arbitration. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he would be irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief (see, CPLR 6301; see generally, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166; Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v. Chmiel, 224 A.D.2d 680, 638 N.Y.S.2d 698).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: February 07, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)