Appio v. Mel Lyn Office Supplying

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Appio v. Mel Lyn Office Supplying

222 A.D.2d 541, 635 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 541 (Appio v. Mel Lyn Office Supplying) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appio v. Mel Lyn Office Supplying, 222 A.D.2d 541, 635 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the balance due on several promissory notes, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated August 18, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin it from, inter alia, selling any property in which the plaintiffs may have a security interest.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movants must show a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Fulop v Sea Gate Assn., 216 AD2d 522). Since the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages or could pursue [542]*542relief under CPLR 6201 (3) for a provisional order of attachment, they failed to show that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted (see, Betesh v Jemal, 209 AD2d 568; Busters Cleaning Corp. v Frati, 180 AD2d 705, 706; Shapiro v Shorenstein, 157 AD2d 833, 835). Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion, for a preliminary injunction. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover the balance due on several promissory notes, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated August 18, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin it from, inter alia, selling any property in which the plaintiffs may have a security interest.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movants must show a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Fulop v Sea Gate Assn., 216 AD2d 522). Since the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages or could pursue [542]*542relief under CPLR 6201 (3) for a provisional order of attachment, they failed to show that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted (see, Betesh v Jemal, 209 AD2d 568; Busters Cleaning Corp. v Frati, 180 AD2d 705, 706; Shapiro v Shorenstein, 157 AD2d 833, 835). Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion, for a preliminary injunction. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 541, 635 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appio-v-mel-lyn-office-supplying-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack