| ROY'S PLUMBING, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS ROY'S PLUMBING HEATING AND COOLING V DGR OF WNY, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS THE |
| Motion No: CA 13-00810 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 74593(U) |
| Decided on May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.
DOCKET NO. CA 13-00810
| ROY'S PLUMBING, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS ROY'S PLUMBING
HEATING AND COOLING, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V DGR OF WNY, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS THE PLUMBER AND 72 DEGREES
HEATING & COOLING ALSO KNOWN AS 72 DEGREES AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING, JOSEPH C. BECKER, JOEL B. TUCCIARONE,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND KENNETH BURNS AND KATHY CHENEZ, DEFENDANTS. |
Appellants having moved, upon the return of an order to show cause granted by the Honorable Eugene M. Fahey on May 2, 2013, for a stay of all proceedings to enforce an order of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Erie on April 23, 2013, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal taken herein, and having moved for other relief,
Now, upon reading and filing the affirmation of Bradley A. Hoppe, Esq., dated April 30, 2013, said show cause order with proof of service thereof, the affidavits of John G. Schmidt, Jr., Esq., sworn to May 1, 2013, and May 8, 2013, and the affidavit of Michael Dollendorf sworn to May 8, 2013, and due deliberation having been had thereon,
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that enforcement of the order entered April 23, 2013, insofar as it purports to freeze appellants's personal and business assets during the pendency of this action is stayed pending the determination of the appeal, on the condition that appellants give an undertaking in the amount of $300,000, and
It is further ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied with leave for appellants to make another motion to this Court if, after a motion to Supreme Court to modify the preliminary injunction, there is still not a workable procedure to deal with (1) how appellants are to identity those customers to whom they are prohibited from soliciting or communicating, and (2) how to protect privileged information that may be contained in the documents and electronic information that appellants have been ordered to disclose.
Entered: May 22, 2013
Frances E. Cafarell, Clerk