Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The purpose of a Yellowstone injunction (see, First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 N.Y.2d 630) is to allow a tenant confronted by a threat of termination of the lease to obtain a stay tolling the running of the cure period so that after a determination of the merits, the tenant may cure the defect and avoid a forfeiture of the leasehold (see, Post v 120 E. End Ave. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 19; Matter of Langfur, 198 A.D.2d 355). In granting Yellowstone relief, the court may impose reasonable conditions, including the posting of an undertaking by the party seeking relief (see, Peron Rest. v Young Rubicam, 179 A.D.2d 469) in an amount rationally related to the quantum of damages which the nonmoving party would sustain in the event the moving party is later determined not to have been entitled to the injunction (see, 61 W. 62nd Owners Corp. v Harkness Apt. Owners Corp., 173 A.D.2d 372, 373). The requirement that the movant also pay "outstanding and prospective use and occupancy fees" in addition to a bond may not be excessive (61 W. 62nd Owners Corp. v Harkness Apt. Owners Corp., supra). Absent a showing that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by imposing conditions in excess of those necessary to protect the nonmoving party's interests, the conditions imposed will not be disturbed (see, 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 6312.11; Donald Shaffer, Inc. v Shaffer, 44 A.D.2d 725).
Here, because the conditions imposed by the court in granting the injunctive relief are in an amount rationally related to the damages the defendant would incur if it is determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion, and the conditions will not be disturbed.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.