JDOC Construction, LLC v. Balabanow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JDOC Construction, LLC v. Balabanow

306 A.D.2d 318, 760 N.Y.S.2d 678

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

DecidedJune 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 318 (JDOC Construction, LLC v. Balabanow) 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

JDOC Construction, LLC v. Balabanow, 306 A.D.2d 318, 760 N.Y.S.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, [319]*319inter alia, seeking specific performance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered January 15, 2002, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in its favor (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 [1990]; Somers Stained Glass Corp. v Somers Designs, 277 AD2d 442 [2000]). Further, the movant must demonstrate a clear right to relief which is plain from the undisputed facts (see Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348, 350 [1998], citing Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747 [1985]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish its likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion for a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, supra; see generally Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157 [1990]). Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, [319]*319inter alia, seeking specific performance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered January 15, 2002, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in its favor (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 [1990]; Somers Stained Glass Corp. v Somers Designs, 277 AD2d 442 [2000]). Further, the movant must demonstrate a clear right to relief which is plain from the undisputed facts (see Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348, 350 [1998], citing Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747 [1985]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish its likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion for a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, supra; see generally Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157 [1990]). Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 318, 760 N.Y.S.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jdoc-construction-llc-v-balabanow-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack