From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franco v. 172 E Holdings

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 31, 2013
110 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-10-31

Sergio FRANCO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 172 E HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Law Offices of Allison M. Furman, P.C., New York (Allison M. Furman of counsel), for appellants. Pedowitz & Meister, LLP, New York (Marisa Warren of counsel), for respondent.


Law Offices of Allison M. Furman, P.C., New York (Allison M. Furman of counsel), for appellants. Pedowitz & Meister, LLP, New York (Marisa Warren of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 1, 2013, which granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and set an undertaking in the nominal amount of $100, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the relief were not granted, and that the equities weigh in his favor ( see Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191 [2005] ). The amount of the required undertaking is appropriate ( see Pouncy v. Dudley, 27 A.D.3d 633, 635, 814 N.Y.S.2d 641 [2d Dept.2006] ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, DeGRASSE, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Franco v. 172 E Holdings

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 31, 2013
110 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Franco v. 172 E Holdings

Case Details

Full title:Sergio FRANCO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 172 E HOLDINGS LLC, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 31, 2013

Citations

110 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7120
974 N.Y.S.2d 241

Citing Cases

Soldiers', Sailors', Marines' & Airmen's Club, Inc. v. Carlton Regency Corp.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in issuing the stay pending resolution of this…

Soldiers', Sailors', Marines' & Airmen's Club, Inc. v. Carlton Regency Corp.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in issuing the stay pending resolution of this…