Somers Stained Glass Corp. v. Somers Designs Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Somers Stained Glass Corp. v. Somers Designs Inc.

277 A.D.2d 442, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 442 (Somers Stained Glass Corp. v. Somers Designs Inc.) 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

Somers Stained Glass Corp. v. Somers Designs Inc., 277 A.D.2d 442, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unfair competition, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered November 5, 1999, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[443]*443To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in its favor (see, Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680, 681; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747). As the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unfair competition, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered November 5, 1999, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[443]*443To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in its favor (see, Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680, 681; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747). As the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 442, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somers-stained-glass-corp-v-somers-designs-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack