In this decision involving a Yellowstone injunction, the Appellate Division, by its directed modification of the order appealed from, recognized that a claim for a declaratory judgment with respect to the lease violations at issue should be set forth in the complaint in the underlying action, so that the parties can obtain a judgment declaring their rights. There were no such claims asserted in the complaint in this action because the action had been commenced by the tenant before the notice to cure was served, and the claims that were asserted in the complaint involved issues unrelated to the lease violations described in the notice to cure. In response to our notice to cure, the tenant moved for a Yellowstone injunction on the existing complaint, without moving to amend the complaint, or starting a new action, to address the specific lease violations described in the notice to cure. Supreme Court granted the tenant a Yellowstone injunction, despite our argument that the Yellowstone injunction should be conditioned on the complaint being amended to include claims relating to the specific lease violations described in the notice to cure.
The modification that we obtained from the Appellate Division conditioned the Yellowstone injunction on the tenant’s moving to amend its complaint to set forth the declaratory judgment claims with respect to the lease violations at issue, thus assuring that there will be judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to such violations. The Appellate Division obviously recognized that without the claimed violations being at issue in the case, there would be no opportunity for a resolution.