Omakaze Sushi Restaurant, Inc. v. Ngan Kam Lee

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

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.