Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aegis Holding Lipstick LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Metropolitan 885 Third Avenue Leasehold LLC

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 24, 2012

AEGIS HOLDING LIPSTICK LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN 885 THIRD AVENUE LEASEHOLD LLC, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC., ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Aegis Holding Lipstick LLC v Metropolitan 885 Third Ave. Leasehold LLC

Decided on May 24, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse, Roman, JJ.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 26, 2011 and November 9, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, dissolved a temporary restraining order that had tolled plaintiff's time to cure the alleged defaults and denied plaintiff's motions for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions granted.

Plaintiff established its entitlement to a Yellowstone injunction. Plaintiff demonstrated that it held a commercial lease, had received a notice to cure from defendant landlord, and had requested injunctive relief prior to the expiration of the cure period. Plaintiff also showed that it was prepared and maintained the ability to cure the alleged defaults (see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Although plaintiff initially did not, as required under the lease, remain open six days per week while it contested defendant's purportedly improper HVAC charges, plaintiff cured that default and there has yet to be a determination as to plaintiff's responsibility to cure the remaining alleged defaults, which the court did not address (see e.g. Boi To Go, Inc. v Second 800 No. 2 LLC, 58 AD3d 482 [2009]).

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

ENTERED: MAY 24, 2012

CLERK

20120524

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.