plaintiffs appellants the main issue in this appeal for this a motion first a pending appeal involves one simple question and that is the subways part of the franchise as that term is the fined by the new york dealer act and the simple answer that simple question is yes and as a result the district court's order is contrary to new york law what can you bring us up to date today's status because we were told something was going to happen yesterday but nobody told us whether it your client isn't there as have her to say you want to be i think that's a that's a more complex question than yes or no because this is a shared facility with jaguar land rover on one side nissan and fifty on the other and shared common areas  systems so they are there with respect to the nissan infiniti only space the i think the argument is there would have been a tech technical addiction yesterday but obviously in order from this court reversing that the underlying water or staying the underlying water could really put that back into the status quo ante immediately and that's why i'm trying to understand you want to stay and i'm trying to understand in view of whatever happened yesterday what undo whatever happened yesterday i believe i believe so your honor well that sounds like something more than a steady state usually says just hold everything where as you want something on would would satisfy the issue because there is the really four different franchise it as at issue here at jaguar land rover for two franchises and nissan and affinity franchises these are shared spaces the plaintiff appellant by com is the jaguar land rover dealer and they have been excluded from the space which they are contractually entitled to under the prime lease under the prime lease both nissan and the prime landlord acknowledge that by com has possessory rights in that space and the sublease which is part  franchise under new york law cannot be terminated absent following the strictures of the new york dealer act the new york dealer act if nothing else stands for the proposition that the federal courts cannot be turned into you dealer act provides a definition a definitive a franchise is a written arrangement in which there is a community of interest in the marketing of motor vehicles and services related there to the new york court of appeals and this court infection overlay interpreted that provision broadly chevrolet that the statute defines a franchise not in terms of a single agreement but as a written arrangement which might extend beyond the dealer agreement to include secondary documents on the new york court of appeal said other documents may be constituent parts of the parties written arrangement reflecting their shared interest in the sales and servicing of motor vehicles and  dealer acts as you cannot end run the dealer and proceeding protections in those procedures but by carving out part of the franchise which is the sublease terminating that and then getting the differential is he out that's a question please are the dealerships are operating they have inventory they have personnel they mean that they can meet their answers here are one of the issues in the underlying case was whether the deaths to nissan a nissan motor nissan motor exceptions were curable and the documents presented to the court below we would just say demonstrate that they were curable that there were enough assets out there that could be sold a mortgage to pay off the debt he just recorded did not  the way the number set it up below it was it would be very good it would be essentially a close call as to whether that would that would suck up all the debts or not the way we grant you is what is what happens to your client with respect to the problems with respect to the premises with respect to buy come for example it severely ill impacts and limits by comes ability to complete the construction necessary even though as you use dan here today you don't know that you're prevented from going for your own or i think you are asking here is simply that the statute and as interpreted by the highest court of the state in new york is applied according to the way it should and yes your honor and i'm trying to understand what happens if we don't grampus your honor if you don't grant the stay and i think this goes to the question before which was a reparable harm the statute provides for an automatic stay without bond in other words the new york legislature by its neck into the statute has determined that a terminations of a franchise broadly defined is a reprimand harm and here the term a nation of the sublease the eviction from the premises under the statute is or is irreparable harm because it terminates part and parcel of the franchise i started to ask about a fiction and you can use it or you're still there no your honor we're with you the eviction took place yesterday the marshals secure the premises we are no longer in the nissan side of the building you're not there now we are not there good morning your honors may have pleased to court my name is john skelton i'm here on behalf of nissan north america and i will start by bringing the court up to date as to what did transpire yesterday on april twenty seventh judge swain entered c i m by com as well as anybody else who was occupying in using the nissan portion of the premises so that's about forty percent of floors one and two in all of floor five the u s marshal's office appeared yesterday and did the necessary evictions and my understanding is that complete legal possession has been returned to nissan pursuant to judge swain's order now i think it's also important to understand that by com which operates a jaguar land rover dealership is still there there are cars in the showroom there are people that are working they are still there jaguar land rover first and second floor about sixty percent forty percent to the right hand side again if you look in from eleventh avenue nissan and infinity infinity ours in their space absolutely their service these entities was ultimately supposed to build and renovate both the jaguar land rover dealership which is done his half is done as well as the nissan and infiniti side and he was going to operate infinity and nissan there through a c i m in a oh i am that nissan half of the project has not been started except for some of the back and infrastructure and the whole i think what you know mr mr mccrory said the single issue before the court is whether or not that the the sublease was a front part of the franchise i would respectfully submit that as part of a motion for stay pending appeal the primary issue before the court is irreparable harm and in this case judge swain specifically found that irreparable nissan would be irreparably harmed because nissan is the tenant to georgetown which is the owner of that building under a prime lease nissan has obligations to start paying rent of over five hundred eighteen thousand dollars a month starting in july nissan ultimately has the responsibility to construct open and operate a nissan an infiniti dealership in that space and if it doesn't it is in default of its prime lease obligations and to  you from doing that yes absolutely and that was why i judge swain entered not only injunctive relief but a rule fifty four b separate and final judgment on our c claim for possession because she recognized and i think that if your honour's read judge swain's the transcript from the hearing on april twenty seventh which quite candidly was the third time were judge swain dealt with the issue of whether this sublease should be terminated on january twentieth when the plaintiffs first filed this case they sought a yellowstone injunction and interesting lee they argued the judge of the facility that were being shared space those were not blocked off those were not locked out because the marshal understood that if they were shared they would still have access to those  under judge swain's april twenty seventh order a series of the injunctive relief deadlines have already passed and possession has already been in put in favor of nissan so it wouldn't  stay at this point wouldn't stay anything there would have to be a reversal a reinstatement and fashioning of some sort of remedy because the key issue before judge swain was she recognize that unless nissan had the ability to invoke its election the election honda the leases to take over construction to basically control its future in terms of getting this building it half of the building built on time she specifically found that if they don't get that right so in what happened is it your position that if we were to grant us that of her ruling th that would have no operative consequence for you because the actions are already been correct and unless unless the courts order include goes beyond simply a stay and did so and it would have to reverse reinstate and start fashioning remedies and because it wouldn't do anything that's why you're in effect arguing it's move the stay applications correct thank you thank