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.
CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR, INC., et al., Respondents, v. 26 ADAR N.B. CORP., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of a claim to real property, the defendants 26 Adar N.B. Corp. and Nachman Brach appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 13, 1997, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment for the entire amount of an undertaking posted by the plaintiff Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., as a condition of a preliminary injunction, and for damages resulting from the use and occupancy by the plaintiffs of the appellants' property during the period following the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 20, 1998, which, following a hearing of the same court (Marano, J.H.O.), denied their application for damages sustained by reason of the granting of a preliminary injunction.
ORDERED that the order dated November 13, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 20, 1998, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that questions of fact precluded summary judgment on that branch of the appellants' cross motion which was to recover damages they incurred because of the plaintiffs' “use and occupancy” of the appellants' property in the period following the improperly issued preliminary injunction (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Moreover, we find that the appellants failed to prove their claims for counsel fees and debt service damages allegedly sustained by reason of the improper granting of a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs (see, CPLR 6312 [b]; Cross Props. v. Brook Realty Co., 76 A.D.2d 445, 430 N.Y.S.2d 820). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' request for payment of the entire undertaking.
The appellants' remaining contentions are 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 08, 1999
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)