Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Goodbye 'Yellowstone' Road

By David B. Saxe and Danielle C. Lesser
May 01, 2018

 

Yellowstone injunctions have long constituted important protection for commercial tenants in New York. Originating with the 1968 Court of Appeals decision in First Nat'l Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Ctr, 21 N.Y.2d 630 (1968), New York courts permit a commercial tenant who has been served with a notice to cure or a notice of a default from its landlord to obtain a stay tolling the cure period and enjoining the landlord from terminating the lease or commencing a summary proceeding. See, e.g., Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Assocs., 93 N.Y.2d 508, 514 (1999). A Yellowstone injunction thus preserves the status quo while the tenant challenges the validity of the landlord's actions. Yellowstone injunctions are “routinely” granted and courts “accept[] far less than the normal showing required for preliminary injunctive relief.” Post v. 120 E. End Ave., 62 N.Y.2d 19, 25 (1984). Yellowstone injunctions are creatures of case law and not statute or regulation.

Recently, however, New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, acknowledged that commercial landlords may employ a strategy that prevents tenants from exercising Yellowstone rights.

'159 MP Corp.'

In 159 MP Corp. v. Redbridge Bedford, No. 2015-01523, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 557 (2d Dept. Jan. 31, 2018), the Second Department upheld a contractual waiver of the right to bring a declaratory judgment action as enforceable and not violative of public policy. The court determined that by waiving the right to bring a declaratory judgment, the tenants also waived their right to bring a motion for a Yellowstone injunction. Unless a contrary result is reached in New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, such waivers could begin to become routine in commercial leases.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?