Mangovski v DiMarco
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 22, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
534 CA 18-01917
[*1]LUPCO MANGOVSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE NAME & RIGHT OF TDK OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND ANY OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, TDK-2 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND ANY OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, TDK-3 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND ANY OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, TDK-4 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND ANY OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THESE LLC'S LISTED SIMILARLY SITUATED, IF ANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v
STEPHEN DIMARCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DAVID DIMARCO FAMILY TRUST, TDK OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, TDK-2 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, TDK-3 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, TDK-4 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, TDK OPERATING COMPANY OF ONEIDA, LLC, TDK PROPERTY COMPANY OF ONEIDA, LLC, TDK PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, TDK-4 PROPERTY COMPANY LLC, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, SYRACUSE (JON P. DEVENDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.) entered June 25, 2018. The order, among other things, denied defendants' motion for leave to renew their opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Mangovski v DiMarco ([appeal No. 1] — AD3d — [Aug. 22, 2019] [4th Dept 2019]).
Entered: August 22, 2019
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.