Legal Opinion · Dissent

Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 23, 1998Published

1Dissent

Rosenberger, J. P.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: I dissent and would affirm the order on appeal. I do not share the majority’s view that plaintiff ceased to be in default as soon as it began paying rent into the escrow account pursuant to the Yellowstone injunction. Nor did the lease provision concerning the interest payable upon default become inapplicable when the injunction went into effect.

The limited purpose of a Yellowstone injunction is to maintain the status quo so that the tenant will not be evicted during the pendency of its legal challenge to the landlord’s determination…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Garland v. Titan West AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. Waldbaum, Inc. v. Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Lexington Avenue & 42nd St. Corp. v. 380 Lexchamp Operating, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. Titleserv, Inc. v. ZenobioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API