Posted On: April 7, 2012 by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff Seeks a Preliminary Injunction

The plaintiffs in the case are La Cara Mia Bar Lounge Inc. The defendants in the case are Great Locations, Inc.

Plaintiff Argument

The plaintiff is seeking an order in the case to grant it preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301, staying that the prosecution of a non-payment summary proceeding that was first heard in the District Court of Nassau County and titled Great Locations versus La Cara Mia. The plaintiff also seeks to deny the defendant from initiating any other proceedings against them including evicting the plaintiff from the premises that are the subject of the instant action.

The plaintiff states that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction as he is likely to be meritorious in this action and will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and the prejudice that he will suffer without the injunction outweighs the prejudice to the defendant if the injunction is granted. A New York Injury Lawyer said there are no arguments submitted that support consolidation.

Defendant argument

The defendant opposes the instant motion, but does not offer any argument as to why. The defendant cross moves and seeks an order that will dismiss the action based on documented evidence. The defendant argues that the dismissal is warranted because of the plaintiff’s cause of action, fraud, and evidence supported by documents in the case. The defendant also seeks to change the venue of the case as the action involves real property and is governed by CPLR 507, which fixes the proper venue of the case in the county where the property at issue is located.

Case Results

The Court has denied the plaintiff’s motion and the defendant’s cross motion. The following reasons are given by the court for denying both motions.

The first cause of action is for lease recession and unjust enrichment. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff claims that it is a tenant within the building owned by the defendant and that the defendant stated that the location could be used as a restaurant or bar immediately. The defendant was informed that the Liquor Authority had issued a prescription which barred the use of the premises as a bar until at least June of 2009 and they withheld this information from the plaintiff.

The second cause of action alleges unjust enrichment and is premised on the same facts as listed above.

In opposition to the instant motion and supporting the cross motion, the defendant submits a document titled “Agreement to pay outstanding debt” the document is an agreement between Curtis and Agramonte and states that Agramonte agrees to pay Curtis, arrears that were owed by Cecilio Almonte and a new lease would be executed.

In this particular case the Court has found that the motion by the plaintiff to combine the instant action and the summary proceeding is denied. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court acknowledges that while the summary proceeding and instant action do involve common questions of the law, jointure is not appropriate since it will hinder the prosecution of the summary proceeding, which the Court has already denied.

It is ordered by the Court that both the plaintiff’s motion and the cross motion of the defendant are denied. It is also ordered by the Court that the plaintiff serve a copy of the order to all parties involved in this case within 30 days of the order being issued.

If you are ever in need of legal consultation, Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices located conveniently throughout the metropolitan area of New York. Our team of lawyers can help, whether you have been in a car accident, are a victim of medical malpractice, or the negligence of another. We offer free consultations at any of our offices. If you are in need of legal advice of any kind, please contact us.