106 Spring St. Owner LLC v Workspace, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

106 Spring St. Owner LLC v Workspace, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 30119(U) January 19, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 657050/2017 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/22/2018 01:45 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 INDEX NO. 657050/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: .J:l_.Q_N, EJLEEN J~B.8NJ:iI!;N.......................... _""'""'"--·-Justice ';06 SPF~ING STREET O\iVNER LLC, PART INDEX NO, 3 657050/20•17 Plaintiff, MOTlON DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. -vWORKSPACE, INC, JEAN MARlE HAESSLE, ,JUSTIN LUBELL, PAUL ZIMET, CRIS GIANAKOS, GRANT INNES, BN~RY MA.LUN, 60 GUILDERS LLC, THE CARLYLE GROUP. BASTIEN BROD.ti,, JASON HART, 93 MERCER STREET OWNER LLC, 001 DEClSlON AND ORDER Defendant. -----------------------····----------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 'Nere read on this application to/for Preliminary Injunction Upon the foregoing documentis;, it is ORDERED Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED with prejudice pursuant to the January 8, 2018 record and transcript at Tr. 2;18 --- 21:1 l (Jacqueline Campbell, SCR); further As part of the application for the preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff rnade a request to hold fonds in escrow should the sale of the commercial unh procee{.L Despite the general denial of the Preliminary Injunction, the court permitted the parties an additional opportunity to submit letter briefing on the issue of holding proceeds in escrow. See Tr. 21 «12 --· 24.'l 2 (Jacqueline 1 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/22/2018 01:45 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 INDEX NO. 657050/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2018 106 SPRING STREET OVvr·IER LLC vs. 'WORKSPACE, INC 657050/2017 Page 2of4 Campbel!, SCR) (January 8, 2012), As a means of clarifying the court's prior ruling, the court now addresses the requested relief of holding money in escrow pending the determination on the merits. \Vhere the ultimate relief is, itself: a preliminary injunction it is subject to heightened standard of scrutiny, See fr. 11 J4-12:13; see also Jones v. Parle fl·ont Apartrnents, LLC, 73 A.D3d 612., 612 (1st Dep't 2010) (holding that the requested reiiefmust be ;'essential" to rnaintaining the status quo) citing Second on Second Cafe, Inc. v. Hing Sing Trading, Jnc., 66 AD.3d 255, 273 (1st Dep't 2009). Thus, Plaintiff must show that denying the proceeds of the sale to the other tenants is essential to maintaining its status quo. It cannot. While plaintiff has made aprimafiicie showing that it may have a right to the proceeds it cannot show that holding the proceeds in essential to maintaining its status quo. See Tr. & 16 --9:12, j j:24-12.'13. (Jacqueline Campbell, SCR) (January 8, 2018). With regard to an iITeparable harm, the general rule is that money damages do not, alone, constitute the type of harm which would wam:.mt injunclive relief. See id at 13: j(} -13:! 6. An exception to this rule exists where the monetary re[ief involves identifiable proceeds which are required to be held for the Plaintiff's benefit See AQ Asset Af,gmt. LLC v. Levine, 111 A.D.3d 245, 259 (1st Dep't 2013). Given, howevt:r, lhat this court has detem1ined that Plaintiff merely may have a right to the proceeds not that it does have a right to the proceeds, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that these proceeds would constitute an irrepa.rable harm. Finally, the equities remain in favor of the Defendant for the reasons stated on the January 8, 2018 record and transcript at Tr. 15: 7 ---16: 7 (Jacqueline Campbell, SCR), Further, given that an issue of fact exists as to whether the Plaintiff waived any right it may have had to proceeds from the sale of Unit #2, Plaintiff has failed to 2 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/22/2018 01:45 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 INDEX NO. 657050/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2018 106 SPRING STREET OWNER LLC vs, 'WORKSPACE, INC 657050/2017 Page 3 of 4 demonstrate that collecting on the proceeds of the sale is essential to maintaining its status quo, It is therefore ORDERED that the PlaintitTs request to hold the proceeds of the sale in escro\v pending the ultimate resolution of this matter is DENIED with prejudice; ORDERED that the Plaintiff's request for a Yellov1stone Injunction is DENIED pending a hearing. 'Nhile the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated the first t;,vo prerequisites to obtaining a Yellmvstone, there remains a question ofiact as to whether the Plaintiff has defaulted on the tenns of the lease. Tr. J6:8 - 2 J: 3 (Jacqueline Campbell. SCR) (.lanuary 8. 20 J8). Prior to granting a Yellowstone, the hearing will determine vvhether the Plaintiff has, in fa.ct, defaulted on the proprietary lease. If the Plaintiff has, in fact, defaulted on its obligation by failing to maintain the water cooling tower then it will have jeopardized public health and safety in a manner which is incurable. See Tr. J6:8 - 17: 19 (.Jacqueline Campbell, SCR) (January 8, 2018); see also Kyung Sik Kirn v. ldyhvood, NY, LLC, 66 A.D.3d 528, 529 (1st Dep't 2009) (holding that independent violations of the lease were incurable and thus an independent basis for denial of a Yellowstone Injunction), Thus, it is further 3 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/22/2018 01:45 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 INDEX NO. 657050/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2018 106 SPJUNG STREET O\VNER LLC vs. \VORKSPA.CE, INC 657050/2017 Page 4of4 ORDERED that until a hearing can take place to determine whether the Plaintiff is, in fact, in default of the proprietary lease, the panies shall not take any action which \Vould alter the present status quo pursuant to the January 8, 2018 record and transcript, Jacqueline Carnpbell, SCR, at Tr, 16: 8 --- 21: J -----------------~L \ qt2Q1_L______________ DATE CHECK ONE: r·····i l___j CASE DISPOSED ~------,.': APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: j : l ' r··----1 GRANTED f"'"": 0 i DENIED X ! NON-FlNAL DISPOSITION 1"'"1 GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER C) SUBMIT ORDER DO NOT POST i FlOUClARY APPOINTMENT :.--.~~~~J i :..... ~~·Jo 4 of 4 D D OTHER REFERENCE

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.