From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bizar v. Ohrenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1986
119 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 1, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.).


This action involves a dispute regarding the division of assets, after payment of liabilities, of a law firm in which plaintiffs and defendants were all partners or associates prior to its dissolution, effective August 1, 1983. In that connection, Special Term, in an order entered on December 17, 1984, granted an injunction which enjoined and restrained during the pendency of the litigation all plaintiffs and defendants, their agents, employees, and assigns from allocating and distributing the present and future assets of the named law firm, from writing checks on the partnership account, directed the parties to place in escrow all fees received from the firm's clients earned prior to August 1, 1984 and collected subsequent to such date, and enjoined the parties from distributing funds from said escrow account. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved to make the injunction retroactive to August 1, 1983, which motion the court ultimately granted. The instant appeal ensued.

An examination of the record herein fails to reveal sufficient basis for injunctive relief since it is impossible at this time to determine which parties are likely to prevail on their claims, there has been no demonstration of irreparable injury absent granting of the preliminary injunction, and the balancing of the equities has not been shown to favor one party or the other. (See, Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496.) Unless there is an indication that a party has a clear right to injunctive relief, such a remedy is inappropriate until the "`issues have been fully explored and the entire matter resolved after plenary trial'". (Little India Stores v. Singh, 101 A.D.2d 727, 728.) Special Term thus was not warranted in granting injunctive relief. However, in view of the fact that all of the parties to the present litigation appear to have agreed that the fees earned by the partnership prior to its dissolution but collected after August 1, 1984 should be placed in escrow, this court will not disturb the provisions of the original order of December 17, 1984.

Concur — Asch, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Bizar v. Ohrenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1986
119 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Bizar v. Ohrenstein

Case Details

Full title:IRVING BIZAR et al., Respondents, v. MANFRED OHRENSTEIN et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 1, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Yan's Video, Inc. v. Hong Kong TV Video Programs, Inc.

Defendants have appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. The law is well settled that in order to…

Midtown South Preservation & Development Committee v. City of New York

We disagree. An examination of the record herein does not indicate that the undisputed material facts are…