From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fatima v. Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 2009
65 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-05646.

September 15, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered May 9, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for appellant.

Rimland Associates, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anthony M. Grisanti of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendant from transferring and/or conveying a certain building located in Astoria. In support of their request for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs argued that their claim was meritorious, and that absent injunctive relief, they would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, they claimed that if injunctive relief were not granted, any potential award in their favor would be rendered ineffectual. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion. A preliminary injunction may not be obtained to preserve assets as security for a potential monetary judgment even if the evidence shows that a party intends to frustrate any judgment by making it uncollectible ( see Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 NY2d 541, 545; Dinner Club Corp. v Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc., 21 AD3d 777, 778). Instead, the separate provisional remedy of attachment may be available to a general creditor where the debtor is transferring assets in order to make a judgment uncollectible ( see CPLR 6201; 39 Coll. Point Corp. v Transpac Capital Corp., 12 AD3d 664, 665).


Summaries of

Fatima v. Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 2009
65 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Fatima v. Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty

Case Details

Full title:HAMIDA FATIMA et al., Respondents, v. TWENTY SEVEN-TWENTY FOUR REALTY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 15, 2009

Citations

65 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6503
885 N.Y.S.2d 224

Citing Cases

Herszdorfer v. Goldberg

Fatimav.Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty Corp., 65 A.D.3d 1079, 885 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2d Dept., 2009). Thus, as…

County of Suffolk v. Love'm

A preliminary injunction is thus not a proper remedy where it appears that the movant can be fully…