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.
ACCESS MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., appellant, v. STRAUS FAMILY CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not in breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), dated May 26, 2006, as directed it to post an undertaking pursuant to CPLR 6312 in the sum of $3,000,000.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the amount of the undertaking from the sum of $3,000,000 to the sum of $1,500,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The fixing of the amount of an undertaking is a matter within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 665; Blueberries Gourmet v. Aris Realty Corp., 255 A.D.2d 348, 350, 680 N.Y.S.2d 557). The amount of the undertaking, however, must not be based upon speculation and must be rationally related to the damages the nonmoving party might suffer if the court later determines that the relief to which the undertaking relates should not have been granted (see Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d at 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 665; 7th Sense v. Liu, 220 A.D.2d 215, 217, 631 N.Y.S.2d 835). The amount of the undertaking will be reduced where the amount fixed is found to be excessive (see G.P.K. Rest. Enters. v. Paravalos, 253 A.D.2d 450, 675 N.Y.S.2d 313).
Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in fixing the undertaking in the sum of $3,000,000. The undertaking should have been fixed in the sum of $1,500,000, as that sum was established by the defendant as the potential damages it might suffer if the preliminary injunction later proves to be unwarranted (see Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 665).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
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: October 30, 2007
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)