Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
______________----------------------------------------------------Ç
IBRAHIMA BAH INDEX No.:
Plaintiff,
-against-
PARTHENON LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________Ç
PLAINTIFF IBRAHIMA BAH'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff IBRAHIMA BAH submits this memorandum of law in support of its application
for an Order to Show Cause, seeking to enjoin and restrain the Defendants, PARTHENON LLC.
from taking any action to terminate or otherwise adversely affect the Plaintiff's interest in and to
a certain leasehold located at 172-18 Jamaica Avenue, Unit 1A, Jamaica, New York.
Plaintiff respectfully directs this Court's attention to the facts as disclosed in the Verified
Complaint in the within proceeding and the Affidavit of Ibrahima Bah, set forth in this
Memorandum of Law, it is eminently clear that this Court should grant the temporary restraining
order prayed for in this Order to Show Cause and further that this Court should grant an
injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from taking any action aimed at terminating or
otherwise adversely affecting the leasehold interest of Plaintiff during the pendency of this action
commenced concurrently herewith for a declaratory judgment and other relief.
ARGUMENT
POINT I
PLAINTIFF HAS SATISFIED THE REQUISITE
1 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
ELEMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
It is clear from the Affidavit of Ibrahima Bah, the Plaintiff herein, submitted in support of
the Order to Show Cause and motion for a permanent injunction that the Plaintiff is entitled to
such relief pending the resolution of the issued and matters before this Court in the action for
Declaratory judgment and other relief. First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21
(2nd
NY2d 630 (1968); Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., 103 AD2d 105, 106
(2"d
Times Square Stores Corp. v. Bernice Realty Co. 107 AD2d 677, 680 Dept 1985);
(l"
Ameurasia International Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v.
(l"
Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763, 763-764 Dept. 1981).
As the Appellate Division First Department has noted in E.C. Electronics, Inc. v.
1"
Amblunthorp Holding, Inc. 38 AD3d 401, 402, 834 NYS2d 14, 15 (App. Div. Dept., 2007),
"the purpose of a Yellowstone injunction (First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21
NY2d 630, 290 NYS2d 721, 237 NE2d 868 [1968]) is to stop the running of the cure period and
to maintain the status quo while the underlying dispute is being litigated (Graubard Mollen
Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 693 NYS2d 91, 715
[1999])."
NE2d 117 The showing required for a Yellowstone injunction is somewhat more
relaxed than in applying for a preliminary injunction. See Garland v. Titan W. Assoc. 147 AD2d
304, 307, 543 NYS2d 56 (1989).
A reading of the above cited cases clearly indicates that the threat of the termination of a
lease is so substantial the Courts of the State of New York have not required a tenant faced with
an imminent termination of its lease to satisfy the traditional standards of the preliminary
injunction. The traditional standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction are: irreparable
injury, likelihood of success on the merits and a balance of the equities (see DeStefano v. PFSB
2 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
(2"d
Assoc., 103 AD2d 839 Dept, 1984)). Although not utilized by Courts in granting or denying
preliminary injunctions in actions such as the instant matter, Plaintiff has clearly satisfied those
standards as well.
The property interest which Plaintiff has in the leasehold and the termination of thereof is
sufficient to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction until a determination of the merits
of the proceeding in the action for a declaratory judgment and other relief. Id. The issues raised
in the Affidavit submitted as part of this Order to Show Cause clearly indicate that injunctive
relief is warranted in this matter. It has been repeatedly held that the injunctive relief sought by
the Plaintiff in this instance is intended only to preserve the rights of the parties because such
parties cannot be fully adjudicated without full consideration of the merits. See 7 West Foods,
(IS'
Inc. v. Forty-Seventh Fifth Co. 109 AD2d 658, 659 Dept, 1985); Ameurasia International
(15'
Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763,
(IS'
763-764 Dept. 1981). The importance of maintaining the status quo is clearly warranted
here. Plaintiff possesses numerous legal and equitable defenses to defendant's allegations of
non-payment and failure to perform under the lease; a declaration of the Plaintiff's rights under
the terms of the Operating Agreement/Lease requires resolution of the declaratory judgment
action concurrently commenced herein.
Should the defendant be allowed to terminate the Lease, Plaintiff will lose its valuable
property interest under the leasehold and in the event the Plaintiff prevails in the declaratory
judgment action, Plaintiff would be without remedy to enforce the decision. The right to cure
must be preserved to ensure that if Plaintiff prevails on the merits, his success will not be
nullified by the lease having been terminated. Ameurasia International Corp. v. Finch Realty Co.
(15' (IS'
90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763, 763-764 Dept. 1981).
3 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
The issuance of a preliminary injunction by the Court is warranted in order that the status
quo between the parties is maintained until the determination of Plaintiff's plenary for a
declaratory judgment, permanent injunction and the other relief be determined and adjudicated.
The Notice of Default, which is annexed as Exhibit B to the Affidavit submitted in
support of the motion shows that Plaintiff is threatened with the imminent termination of its
leasehold interest at 172-18 Jamaica Avenue, Unit 1A, Jamaica, New York. The threatened
termination of its leasehold interest is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp. 62 NY2d 630 (1968); First Nat. Stores v.
Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d 630 (1968); Times Square Stores Corp. v. Bernice
(2"'
Realty Co. 107 AD2d 677, 680 Dept 1985).
In Pog, the Court of Appeals recited the history of the Yellowstone injunction in New
York:
"Courts have granted them [Yellowstone injunctions] routinely to avoid
forfeiture of the tenants interest and in doing so they accepted far less than
the normal showing required for a preliminary injunctive relief. An
applicant rarely has been required to demonstrate a likelihood of success,
irreparable injury, and that the equities favored preliminary relief as those
terms are traditionally understood. Indeed, the Courts have not professed
to require such evidence (see Ameurasia Int. Corp. v. Realty Co. 90 AD2d
760; Finley v. Park Ten Assoc. 83 AD2d 537; Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82
AD2d 763). The threat of termination of the lease and forfeiture, standing
alone, has been sufficient to permit maintenance of the status quo by
injunction."
(Material in brackets added).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Times Sq. Stores Corp., supra, held:
"To avoid the injustice of subjecting a tenant in [tenant's] position to
summary eviction proceedings during the pendency of its declaratory
judgment action without any further opportunity to cure its breach, Courts
have devised 'the Yellowstone injunction, i.e., a preliminary injunction, by
a tenant prior to the expiration of the cure period, which stays the running
of that period, and allows the lease to remain in effect until the underlying
resolved'
dispute has been (Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., 103
AD2d 105; First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d
4 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
630). As a matter of policy, Courts have routinely granted Yellowstone
tenants'
injunctions in order to avoid forfeitures of interests, and, in doing
so, have accepted far less than the normal prerequisites for preliminary
injunctive relief (See Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp. 62 NY2d 630;
Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., supra; Ameurasia Int. Corp. v. Finch
Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760; Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763). 'The
threat of termination of the lease and forfeiture, standing alone, has been
sufficient to permit maintenance of the status quo by injunction.'. (See
Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp, supra, p. 26). Inasmuch as tenants
have a substantial property interest in their leaseholds, the right to cure
violations must be preserved in order to ensure that if they prevail on their
merits, their success will not be nullified by virtue of the lease having been
680."
terminated (Podolsky v. Hoffman, supra). 107 AD2d at p.
The Appellate Division, First Department has also recognized the importance of
Yellowstone Injunctions in protecting the substantial interest of tenants in preserving the
leasehold interest. In Podolsky, supra, the First Department held:
"Yellowstone warrants a grant by a Supreme Court (and a preliminary
injunction to avoid possible conflicts between the two Courts) without a
determination of either side's likelihood of success. Because the Plaintiffs
have a substantial property interest in their lease their right to cure must be
preserved to ensure that if they prevail on the merits their success will not
terminated....."
be nullified by the lease having been
Id. At 763.
(1"
In Finley v. Park Ten Associates, 83 AD 2d 537 Dept. 1981), the First Department again
stated:
"Because of the nature of the problem [the service of a notice to cure upon
a tenant founded upon a violation of a substantial obligation of the tenant's
lease] the standards normally applicable to temporary injunctive relief
have little application to a Yellowstone situation. In the latter case the
purpose is to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether,
in fact, there has been a breach of a substantial obligation of the lease.
538."
(material in brackets added) Id at
POINT II
PLAINTIFF HAS SATISFIED ITS BURDEN TO OBTAIN THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
125*
In Jemaltown of Street v. Leon Betesh/Park See Realty Associates, 115 AD2d 381
(l"'
dept. 1985), the First Department set forth the burden a movant must establish to obtain a
Yellowstone injunction:
"Rather than requiring the tenant to prove, on his application, that he can
cure the alleged defects, all he need do to obtain the Yellowstone
injunction is to convince the Court of his desire and ability to cure the
premises."
defects by any means short of vacating the Id, at 382.
Certainly, the affidavit of CHARLES MANSOOR and the Verified Complaint herein
exemplify the Plaintiff's desire and ability to cure the alleged defaults. The Plaintiff does not
dispute its obligations under the lease; rather, the Plaintiff disputes that it has failed to comply
with the terms of the lease, and have taken all necessary steps required to cure any alleged
breaches of the lease, in light of the express terms and conditions of the lease agreement, and
Defendant's breach of the lease.
That Affidavit exemplifies the substantial interest in the Plaintiff in preserving its
leasehold interest and its interest in maintaining the status quo pending the determination of
whether there has been a breach of a substantial obligation of the Lease. The Plaintiff, therefore,
has satisfied the burden of proof to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
The Court should grant Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The threatened
termination of the plaintiff's valuable leasehold interest warrants this preliminary injunctive
relief. In the event that this Court does not issue a preliminary injunction the leasehold interest
of the plaintiff shall be terminated in accordance with the terms of Notice of Default.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated as cited herein, it is respectfully requested that this
Court grant Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction
6 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
pending the determination of the Plaintiff's action seeking declaratory and other relief as set
forth in the Verified Complaint.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 26, 2024
Ed ard Hall, Esq.
BALSAMO, ROSENBLATT & HALL, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
200 Schermerhom Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 858-7399
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ______________----------------------------------------------------Ç IBRAHIMA BAH INDEX No.: Plaintiff, -against- PARTHENON LLC, Defendant. _____________________________________________________Ç PLAINTIFF IBRAHIMA BAH'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff IBRAHIMA BAH submits this memorandum of law in support of its application for an Order to Show Cause, seeking to enjoin and restrain the Defendants, PARTHENON LLC. from taking any action to terminate or otherwise adversely affect the Plaintiff's interest in and to a certain leasehold located at 172-18 Jamaica Avenue, Unit 1A, Jamaica, New York. Plaintiff respectfully directs this Court's attention to the facts as disclosed in the Verified Complaint in the within proceeding and the Affidavit of Ibrahima Bah, set forth in this Memorandum of Law, it is eminently clear that this Court should grant the temporary restraining order prayed for in this Order to Show Cause and further that this Court should grant an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from taking any action aimed at terminating or otherwise adversely affecting the leasehold interest of Plaintiff during the pendency of this action commenced concurrently herewith for a declaratory judgment and other relief. ARGUMENT POINT I PLAINTIFF HAS SATISFIED THE REQUISITE 1 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 ELEMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION It is clear from the Affidavit of Ibrahima Bah, the Plaintiff herein, submitted in support of the Order to Show Cause and motion for a permanent injunction that the Plaintiff is entitled to such relief pending the resolution of the issued and matters before this Court in the action for Declaratory judgment and other relief. First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 (2nd NY2d 630 (1968); Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., 103 AD2d 105, 106 (2"d Times Square Stores Corp. v. Bernice Realty Co. 107 AD2d 677, 680 Dept 1985); (l" Ameurasia International Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v. (l" Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763, 763-764 Dept. 1981). As the Appellate Division First Department has noted in E.C. Electronics, Inc. v. 1" Amblunthorp Holding, Inc. 38 AD3d 401, 402, 834 NYS2d 14, 15 (App. Div. Dept., 2007), "the purpose of a Yellowstone injunction (First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d 630, 290 NYS2d 721, 237 NE2d 868 [1968]) is to stop the running of the cure period and to maintain the status quo while the underlying dispute is being litigated (Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 693 NYS2d 91, 715 [1999])." NE2d 117 The showing required for a Yellowstone injunction is somewhat more relaxed than in applying for a preliminary injunction. See Garland v. Titan W. Assoc. 147 AD2d 304, 307, 543 NYS2d 56 (1989). A reading of the above cited cases clearly indicates that the threat of the termination of a lease is so substantial the Courts of the State of New York have not required a tenant faced with an imminent termination of its lease to satisfy the traditional standards of the preliminary injunction. The traditional standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction are: irreparable injury, likelihood of success on the merits and a balance of the equities (see DeStefano v. PFSB 2 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 (2"d Assoc., 103 AD2d 839 Dept, 1984)). Although not utilized by Courts in granting or denying preliminary injunctions in actions such as the instant matter, Plaintiff has clearly satisfied those standards as well. The property interest which Plaintiff has in the leasehold and the termination of thereof is sufficient to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction until a determination of the merits of the proceeding in the action for a declaratory judgment and other relief. Id. The issues raised in the Affidavit submitted as part of this Order to Show Cause clearly indicate that injunctive relief is warranted in this matter. It has been repeatedly held that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiff in this instance is intended only to preserve the rights of the parties because such parties cannot be fully adjudicated without full consideration of the merits. See 7 West Foods, (IS' Inc. v. Forty-Seventh Fifth Co. 109 AD2d 658, 659 Dept, 1985); Ameurasia International (15' Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763, (IS' 763-764 Dept. 1981). The importance of maintaining the status quo is clearly warranted here. Plaintiff possesses numerous legal and equitable defenses to defendant's allegations of non-payment and failure to perform under the lease; a declaration of the Plaintiff's rights under the terms of the Operating Agreement/Lease requires resolution of the declaratory judgment action concurrently commenced herein. Should the defendant be allowed to terminate the Lease, Plaintiff will lose its valuable property interest under the leasehold and in the event the Plaintiff prevails in the declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff would be without remedy to enforce the decision. The right to cure must be preserved to ensure that if Plaintiff prevails on the merits, his success will not be nullified by the lease having been terminated. Ameurasia International Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. (15' (IS' 90 AD2d 760 Dept. 1982); Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763, 763-764 Dept. 1981). 3 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 The issuance of a preliminary injunction by the Court is warranted in order that the status quo between the parties is maintained until the determination of Plaintiff's plenary for a declaratory judgment, permanent injunction and the other relief be determined and adjudicated. The Notice of Default, which is annexed as Exhibit B to the Affidavit submitted in support of the motion shows that Plaintiff is threatened with the imminent termination of its leasehold interest at 172-18 Jamaica Avenue, Unit 1A, Jamaica, New York. The threatened termination of its leasehold interest is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp. 62 NY2d 630 (1968); First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d 630 (1968); Times Square Stores Corp. v. Bernice (2"' Realty Co. 107 AD2d 677, 680 Dept 1985). In Pog, the Court of Appeals recited the history of the Yellowstone injunction in New York: "Courts have granted them [Yellowstone injunctions] routinely to avoid forfeiture of the tenants interest and in doing so they accepted far less than the normal showing required for a preliminary injunctive relief. An applicant rarely has been required to demonstrate a likelihood of success, irreparable injury, and that the equities favored preliminary relief as those terms are traditionally understood. Indeed, the Courts have not professed to require such evidence (see Ameurasia Int. Corp. v. Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760; Finley v. Park Ten Assoc. 83 AD2d 537; Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763). The threat of termination of the lease and forfeiture, standing alone, has been sufficient to permit maintenance of the status quo by injunction." (Material in brackets added). The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Times Sq. Stores Corp., supra, held: "To avoid the injustice of subjecting a tenant in [tenant's] position to summary eviction proceedings during the pendency of its declaratory judgment action without any further opportunity to cure its breach, Courts have devised 'the Yellowstone injunction, i.e., a preliminary injunction, by a tenant prior to the expiration of the cure period, which stays the running of that period, and allows the lease to remain in effect until the underlying resolved' dispute has been (Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., 103 AD2d 105; First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d 4 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 630). As a matter of policy, Courts have routinely granted Yellowstone tenants' injunctions in order to avoid forfeitures of interests, and, in doing so, have accepted far less than the normal prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief (See Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp. 62 NY2d 630; Brodsky v. 163-35 Ninth Ave Corp., supra; Ameurasia Int. Corp. v. Finch Realty Co. 90 AD2d 760; Podolsky v. Hoffman, 82 AD2d 763). 'The threat of termination of the lease and forfeiture, standing alone, has been sufficient to permit maintenance of the status quo by injunction.'. (See Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp, supra, p. 26). Inasmuch as tenants have a substantial property interest in their leaseholds, the right to cure violations must be preserved in order to ensure that if they prevail on their merits, their success will not be nullified by virtue of the lease having been 680." terminated (Podolsky v. Hoffman, supra). 107 AD2d at p. The Appellate Division, First Department has also recognized the importance of Yellowstone Injunctions in protecting the substantial interest of tenants in preserving the leasehold interest. In Podolsky, supra, the First Department held: "Yellowstone warrants a grant by a Supreme Court (and a preliminary injunction to avoid possible conflicts between the two Courts) without a determination of either side's likelihood of success. Because the Plaintiffs have a substantial property interest in their lease their right to cure must be preserved to ensure that if they prevail on the merits their success will not terminated....." be nullified by the lease having been Id. At 763. (1" In Finley v. Park Ten Associates, 83 AD 2d 537 Dept. 1981), the First Department again stated: "Because of the nature of the problem [the service of a notice to cure upon a tenant founded upon a violation of a substantial obligation of the tenant's lease] the standards normally applicable to temporary injunctive relief have little application to a Yellowstone situation. In the latter case the purpose is to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether, in fact, there has been a breach of a substantial obligation of the lease. 538." (material in brackets added) Id at POINT II PLAINTIFF HAS SATISFIED ITS BURDEN TO OBTAIN THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 125* In Jemaltown of Street v. Leon Betesh/Park See Realty Associates, 115 AD2d 381 (l"' dept. 1985), the First Department set forth the burden a movant must establish to obtain a Yellowstone injunction: "Rather than requiring the tenant to prove, on his application, that he can cure the alleged defects, all he need do to obtain the Yellowstone injunction is to convince the Court of his desire and ability to cure the premises." defects by any means short of vacating the Id, at 382. Certainly, the affidavit of CHARLES MANSOOR and the Verified Complaint herein exemplify the Plaintiff's desire and ability to cure the alleged defaults. The Plaintiff does not dispute its obligations under the lease; rather, the Plaintiff disputes that it has failed to comply with the terms of the lease, and have taken all necessary steps required to cure any alleged breaches of the lease, in light of the express terms and conditions of the lease agreement, and Defendant's breach of the lease. That Affidavit exemplifies the substantial interest in the Plaintiff in preserving its leasehold interest and its interest in maintaining the status quo pending the determination of whether there has been a breach of a substantial obligation of the Lease. The Plaintiff, therefore, has satisfied the burden of proof to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The Court should grant Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The threatened termination of the plaintiff's valuable leasehold interest warrants this preliminary injunctive relief. In the event that this Court does not issue a preliminary injunction the leasehold interest of the plaintiff shall be terminated in accordance with the terms of Notice of Default. CONCLUSION For the reasons previously stated as cited herein, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction 6 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 709058/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 pending the determination of the Plaintiff's action seeking declaratory and other relief as set forth in the Verified Complaint. Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 26, 2024 Ed ard Hall, Esq. BALSAMO, ROSENBLATT & HALL, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff 200 Schermerhom Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 858-7399 7 of 7