Dover Gourmet Corp. v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dover Gourmet Corp. v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

89 A.D.3d 979, 933 N.Y.2d 574

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 979 (Dover Gourmet Corp. v. Nassau Health Care Corp.) 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

Dover Gourmet Corp. v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 89 A.D.3d 979, 933 N.Y.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see CFLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc., 83 AD3d 623 [2011]; S.J.J.K. Tennis, Inc. v Confer Bethpage, LLC, 81 AD3d 629 [2011]; Volunteer Fire Assn. of Tappan, Inc. v County of Rockland, 60 AD3d 666, 667 [2009]). The decision whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; Rowland v Dushin, 82 AD3d 738 [2011]; Trump on the [980]*980Ocean, LLC v Ash, 81 AD3d 713, 715 [2011]; City of Long Beach v Sterling Am. Capital, LLC, 40 AD3d 902 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33353(U).]

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

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see CFLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc., 83 AD3d 623 [2011]; S.J.J.K. Tennis, Inc. v Confer Bethpage, LLC, 81 AD3d 629 [2011]; Volunteer Fire Assn. of Tappan, Inc. v County of Rockland, 60 AD3d 666, 667 [2009]). The decision whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; Rowland v Dushin, 82 AD3d 738 [2011]; Trump on the [980]*980Ocean, LLC v Ash, 81 AD3d 713, 715 [2011]; City of Long Beach v Sterling Am. Capital, LLC, 40 AD3d 902 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33353(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 979, 933 N.Y.2d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dover-gourmet-corp-v-nassau-health-care-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack