From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taft Partners Development Group v. Drizin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2000
268 A.D.2d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 25, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about September 1, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from distributing or otherwise dissipating any refund received from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and directing them to deposit such money in a separate interest-bearing account, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of directing defendant to post a bond as a condition to such injunctive relief, and remanding the matter for the purpose of fixing the amount thereof, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Jacques Catafago, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Peretz Bronstein, for defendant-respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., TOM, MAZZARELLI, LERNER, RUBIN, JJ.


The motion court properly granted a preliminary injunction in order to maintain the status quo pending resolution of this dispute between partners, but should have required defendant to post an undertaking (CPLR 6312 [b]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Taft Partners Development Group v. Drizin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2000
268 A.D.2d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Taft Partners Development Group v. Drizin

Case Details

Full title:TAFT PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHOLOM…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
700 N.Y.S.2d 833

Citing Cases

Elizabeth St. Inc. v. 217 Elizabeth St.

"`[T]he mere intention to commit the agreement to writing will not prevent contract formation prior to…