Tatum v. Newell Funding, LLC

63 A.D.3d 911, 880 N.Y.S.2d 542
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 911 (Tatum v. Newell Funding, LLC) 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
Tatum v. Newell Funding, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 911, 880 N.Y.S.2d 542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring, in effect, that a certain loan agreement is usurious, void, and unenforceable, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October [912]*9123, 2007, which denied their motion, in effect, for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from selling a certain cooperative apartment unit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of the equities favors the movant’s position (see Gluck v Hoary, 55 AD3d 668 [2008]; Apa Sec., Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d 502, 503 [2007]). The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2008]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood of success on the merits (see Gluck v Hoary, 55 AD3d at 668; Apa Sec., Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d at 50.3). Florio, J.P., Miller, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Parolisi v. Slavin
94 A.D.3d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cooper v. Board of White Sands Condominium
89 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Blinds & Carpet Gallery, Inc. v. E.E.M. Realty, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Capruso v. Village of Kings Point
78 A.D.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
County of Suffolk v. Love'M Sheltering, Inc.
27 Misc. 3d 1127 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Kohn v. Friedman
71 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Berkoski v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Village of Southampton
67 A.D.3d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.3d 911, 880 N.Y.S.2d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-newell-funding-llc-nyappdiv-2009.