Khan v. State University of New York Health Science Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khan v. State University of New York Health Science Center

271 A.D.2d 656, 706 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 656 (Khan v. State University of New York Health Science Center) 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

Khan v. State University of New York Health Science Center, 271 A.D.2d 656, 706 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant from taking any “retaliatory personnel action” against the plaintiff in violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 12, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from discharging the plaintiff from his employment pending the trial of the action.

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

It is well settled that a preliminary injunction may be granted under CPLR article 63 only if the party seeking such relief has demonstrated (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld, and (3) a balancing of the equities weighing in favor of the moving party (see, CPLR 6301; Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v Katz, 250 AD2d 726). Assuming that the plaintiff made an adequate showing of merit and that the equities bal[657]*657anee in his favor, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable injury.

The plaintiff claimed that he would be irreparably harmed without the issuance of the injunction because if he lost his position as a faculty member with the defendant, he would have no one to support him, he would be unable to live in the New York metropolitan area, and would be unable to prosecute this action. In addition, the plaintiff claims, for the first tibie on appeal, that if he were to be out of work for an extended period, he would have to return to Australia and would never be able to obtain United States citizenship. Appellate review is limited to the record made at the Supreme Court and, absent matters that may be judicially noticed, new facts may not be injected at the appellate level (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88). In any event, the plaintiffs contentions are wholly speculative and conclusory, and, therefore, are insufficient to satisfy the burden of demonstrating irreparable injury (see, Wurttembergische Fire Ins. Co. v Pan Atl. Underwriters, 133 AD2d 268, 269). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant from taking any “retaliatory personnel action” against the plaintiff in violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 12, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from discharging the plaintiff from his employment pending the trial of the action.

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

It is well settled that a preliminary injunction may be granted under CPLR article 63 only if the party seeking such relief has demonstrated (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld, and (3) a balancing of the equities weighing in favor of the moving party (see, CPLR 6301; Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v Katz, 250 AD2d 726). Assuming that the plaintiff made an adequate showing of merit and that the equities bal[657]*657anee in his favor, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable injury.

The plaintiff claimed that he would be irreparably harmed without the issuance of the injunction because if he lost his position as a faculty member with the defendant, he would have no one to support him, he would be unable to live in the New York metropolitan area, and would be unable to prosecute this action. In addition, the plaintiff claims, for the first tibie on appeal, that if he were to be out of work for an extended period, he would have to return to Australia and would never be able to obtain United States citizenship. Appellate review is limited to the record made at the Supreme Court and, absent matters that may be judicially noticed, new facts may not be injected at the appellate level (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88). In any event, the plaintiffs contentions are wholly speculative and conclusory, and, therefore, are insufficient to satisfy the burden of demonstrating irreparable injury (see, Wurttembergische Fire Ins. Co. v Pan Atl. Underwriters, 133 AD2d 268, 269). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 656, 706 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khan-v-state-university-of-new-york-health-science-center-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack