Omakaze Sushi Restaurant, Inc. v. Ngan Kam Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Omakaze Sushi Restaurant, Inc. v. Ngan Kam Lee

57 A.D.3d 497, 868 N.Y.2d 726

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 497 (Omakaze Sushi Restaurant, Inc. v. Ngan Kam Lee) 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

Omakaze Sushi Restaurant, Inc. v. Ngan Kam Lee, 57 A.D.3d 497, 868 N.Y.2d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendants (hereinafter the appellants) for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the plaintiff from performing any construction or renovation work upon the subject premises.

A party seeking the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction must establish a clear right to that relief under the law and the undisputed facts (see Gagnon Bus Co., Inc. v Vallo Transp., Ltd., 13 AD3d 334 [2004]). The burden of proof is on the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable injury if the relief is withheld, and a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 [1988]).

Here, the facts are in such sharp dispute that it cannot be said that the appellants established a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief (see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Matter of Related Props., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 AD3d 587, 590 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendants (hereinafter the appellants) for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the plaintiff from performing any construction or renovation work upon the subject premises.

A party seeking the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction must establish a clear right to that relief under the law and the undisputed facts (see Gagnon Bus Co., Inc. v Vallo Transp., Ltd., 13 AD3d 334 [2004]). The burden of proof is on the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable injury if the relief is withheld, and a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 [1988]).

Here, the facts are in such sharp dispute that it cannot be said that the appellants established a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief (see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Matter of Related Props., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 AD3d 587, 590 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 497, 868 N.Y.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omakaze-sushi-restaurant-inc-v-ngan-kam-lee-nyappdiv-2008.