From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rattner Associates v. Sears, Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06143

Argued April 1, 2002.

May 8, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated June 14, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for a preliminary injunction directing the plaintiff to turn over certain funds in its possession.

Joseph J. Haspel, Goshen, N.Y., for appellant.

Lynch Rowin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Marc Rowin and Karen L. Kirshenbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FEUERSTEIN, J.P., MILLER, KRAUSMAN, COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court had no authority pursuant to CPLR 6301 to order the turn over of disputed funds. The purpose of CPLR 6301 is to preserve the status quo and to prevent dissipation of property which may make a judgment ineffectual (see CPLR 6301; Hicksville Props. v. Wollenhaupt, 268 A.D.2d 407). The status quo in this case is that the plaintiff is holding the disputed funds pending a resolution of the complaint. In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860; W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496; Peterson v. Corbin, 275 A.D.2d 35).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rattner Associates v. Sears, Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Rattner Associates v. Sears, Roebuck

Case Details

Full title:RATTNER ASSOCIATES, appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK CO., respondent

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

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Weinreb Management, LLC v. KBD Management, Inc.

In order to prevail upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of…

Weg v. Kaufman

A preliminary injunction is used to maintain the status quo and further prevent a party from dissipating…