From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kazdin v. Putter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 26, 1991
177 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).


On an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction, review should be limited to whether there has been an abuse of discretion (Gambar Enters. v. Kelly Servs., 69 A.D.2d 297, 306). We find no such abuse here. Respondent satisfied the three-pronged test for a preliminary injunction (see, Koursiaris v. Astoria N. Dev., 143 A.D.2d 639). Whatever the parties' present contentions with respect to the actual agreement, the sublease plainly calls for the demised premises to consist of 300 square feet of space. Nor did IAS abuse its discretion in fixing the undertakings. The amounts fixed are rationally related to defendants' potential damages if the preliminary injunction later proves to have been unwarranted (61 W. 62nd Owners Corp. v Harkness Apt. Owners Corp., 173 A.D.2d 372, 373).

We have reviewed defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Kazdin v. Putter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 26, 1991
177 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Kazdin v. Putter

Case Details

Full title:HERBERT J. KAZDIN et al., Plaintiffs, and LOVE 85TH STREET PHARMACY, INC.…

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

Date published: Nov 26, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Worbes Corp. v. Sebrow

Thus, an undertaking is a condition precedent to the grant of a preliminary injunction and such requirement…

Sebco Dev. v. Bldg. Mgmt. Assocs.

The amount of such undertaking is solely within the court's discretion and should be as much as rationally…