Digestive Liver Disease, P.C. v. Patel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Digestive Liver Disease, P.C. v. Patel

18 A.D.3d 423, 793 N.Y.S.2d 773

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 423 (Digestive Liver Disease, P.C. v. Patel) 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

Digestive Liver Disease, P.C. v. Patel, 18 A.D.3d 423, 793 N.Y.S.2d 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated September 26, 2003, denying its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the moving party first establishes (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) that irreparable injury will occur absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities favors the movant (see CFLR 6301; W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496 [1981]). Where the facts are sharply disputed, those elements cannot be established and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied (see Morley Distribs. v Merinberg, 216 AD2d 544 [1995]; Price Paper & Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748 [1992]; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747 [1985]).

Here, the facts surrounding the termination of the defendant’s employment from the plaintiff corporation are sharply disputed. As a result, the court could not determine that a balancing of the equities favors the plaintiff. Thus, the preliminary injunction was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated September 26, 2003, denying its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the moving party first establishes (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) that irreparable injury will occur absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities favors the movant (see CFLR 6301; W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496 [1981]). Where the facts are sharply disputed, those elements cannot be established and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied (see Morley Distribs. v Merinberg, 216 AD2d 544 [1995]; Price Paper & Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748 [1992]; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747 [1985]).

Here, the facts surrounding the termination of the defendant’s employment from the plaintiff corporation are sharply disputed. As a result, the court could not determine that a balancing of the equities favors the plaintiff. Thus, the preliminary injunction was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 423, 793 N.Y.S.2d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/digestive-liver-disease-pc-v-patel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack