From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benenson v. SKEK Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-02488

Argued February 11, 2002.

April 29, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties under a commercial lease, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), entered December 29, 2000, which, upon an order of the same court, dated April 4, 2000, denying their motion for a Yellowstone injunction, and an order of the same court, dated October 3, 2000, granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4) to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Stephen M. Harnik, New York, N.Y. (Morton Povman of counsel), for appellants.

Heller, Horowitz Feit, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Maurice W. Heller and Allen M. Eisenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiffs moved for a Yellowstone injunction (see First Natl. Stores v. Yellowstone Shop. Ctr., 21 N.Y.2d 630) after "the running of the applicable cure period" (Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Assocs., 93 N.Y.2d 508), their motion was properly denied (see, Newtech Video Computer v. 350 Seventh Ave. Assocs., 207 A.D.2d 730; T.W. Dress Corp. v. Kaufman, 143 A.D.2d 900; Health N Sports v. Providence Capitol Realty Group, 75 A.D.2d 884).

The relief which the plaintiffs seek in the instant action is "substantially the same" (Kent Dev. Co. v. Liccione, 37 N.Y.2d 899) as the relief which they seek in a counterclaim in another action pending between the parties. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in the instant action (see CPLR 3211[a][4]; cf. JC Mfg. v. NPI Elec., 178 A.D.2d 505).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., O'BRIEN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Benenson v. SKEK Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Benenson v. SKEK Associates

Case Details

Full title:ESTHER BENENSON, ET AL., appellants, v. SKEK ASSOCIATES, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 418

Citing Cases

Where The Heart Is LLC v. NewRez LLC

Here, CPLR 3211 (a) (4) does not require dismissal. While the counterclaims raised in the 2018 Action…

SKEK Associates v. Benenson

The appeal from the intermediate order in Action No. 2 must be dismissed, because the right of direct appeal…