The plaintiff, a land developer, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over one of the defendant's properties, 5318 Stouffville Road, based on a right of first refusal (ROFR) in a development management agreement.
The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the ROFR had terminated, was void for vagueness, or was not triggered as the property was part of a larger package.
The court found that while the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding the ROFR, it failed to demonstrate the uniqueness of the land or that damages would be an inadequate remedy.
Considering the defendant's advanced age and reliance on the property for retirement, the court concluded that the harm to the defendant from a CPL outweighed the harm to the plaintiff, whose losses could be compensated by damages.
The motion for leave to issue a CPL was dismissed.
