Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Commercial Leasing Law & StrategyFeaturesCommercial LitigationLandlord Tenant LawLitigation

Waiving the Right to <i>Yellowstone</i> Injunctive Relief

By Janice G. Inman
August 01, 2018

In a case of first impression, and after it decided public policy would not be offended, New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, decided earlier this year that commercial tenants may contractually waive the right to seek a Yellowstone injunction in 159 MP Corp. v. Redbridge Bedford, 160 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div., 2nd Dep't, 1/31/18). A Yellowstone injunction is derived from the 1968 New York high court case of First National Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 N.Y.2d 630, and it is actually a temporary restraining order (TRO) that preserves the status quo, preventing the landlord from evicting the tenant during the pendency of judicial proceedings concerning the underlying issues between the parties.

The 159 MP Corp. decision is not without controversy, as in certain circumstances it might leave some tenants in limbo, not knowing their rights and responsibilities yet unable to seek clarification from the courts. Commercial landlords and tenants negotiating leases need to understand 159 MP Corp. and proceed with caution — or with abandon, as the case may be.

The Yellowstone Injunction, Explained

In Yellowstone, a case decided 50 years ago, the landlord, in accordance with the terms of the lease, presented the tenant with a notice to cure that gave it 10 days to come into compliance, after which the landlord could enter and evict. The “cure” required was the installation of a sprinkler system that the fire department had ordered installed. The tenant believed that it was the landlord's responsibility to install the sprinkler system, so instituted a declaratory judgment action to settle that question. The tenant later also asked for an injunction prohibiting the landlord from evicting, but did not ask for a TRO. The 10 days allowed for cure passed as all of this was transpiring and the landlord moved to evict the tenant. The court thereafter declined to assert jurisdiction over the matter.

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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.