Application for Preliminary Injunction in New York

What Is an Application for Preliminary Injunction?

Background

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent the dissipation of rights that could render a judgment ineffectual. (Weinreb Mgt., LLC v. KBD Mgt., Inc., 22 A.D.3d 571, 802 N.Y.S.2d 623 [2005]; Livas v. Mitzner, 303 A.D.2d 381, 382 [2nd Dept. 2003].)

How to Structure the Motion

A preliminary injunction will only be granted when the party seeking such relief demonstrates:

a clear showing of a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits;
irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is withheld; and
a balance of equities tipping in favor of the moving party.

(Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748 [1988]; OraSure Tech., Inc. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 348 [1st Dept. 2007].)

Proof establishing these elements must be made “by affidavit and other component proof, with evidentiary detail. If key facts are in dispute, the relief will be denied.” (Faberge Intl. v. Di Pino, 109 A.D.2d 235, 240 [1st Dept. 1985].)

A likelihood of success on the merits requires the proponent to tender sufficient evidence demonstrating ultimate success in the underlying action. (Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748 [1988].) The movant need not establish a certainty of success on their claims, but they do need to make a prima facie showing of their likelihood of success. (McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel, Inc. v. W.J. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d 165 [2nd Dept. 1986].) It should be noted that the existence of sharp factual disputes as to key issues in a case precludes the finding of a likelihood of success on the merits and makes the grant of a preliminary injunction inappropriate. (Brodsky v. Brodsky, 208 A.D.2d 669 [2nd Dept. 1994].) Conclusory statements lacking evidentiary detail are insufficient and warrant the denial of a preliminary injunction. (Glazer v. Brown, 55 A.D.3d 1385 [4th Dept. 2008]; Village of Honeoye Falls v. Elmer, 69 A.D.2d 1010 [4th Dept. 1979].)

The second requirement states that a preliminary injunction may be granted if an activity complained of “will cause irreparable injury to the party seeking such relief before a trial can be held to resolve the underlying controversy.” (Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 63 A.D.2d 567, 569 [1st Dept. 1978].) A preliminary injunction is the proper remedy “when the injury is permanent in character, and the damages resulting therefrom continuous in their nature, and especially where, from the nature of the act and injury suffered, it is impossible or difficult to ascertain and determine the extent of the injury which may flow from a continuance of the wrong.” (Poughkeepsie Gas Co. v. Citizens’ Gas Co., 89 N.Y. 493, 497 [1882].) It is well-settled that damages compensable in money and capable of calculation, albeit with some difficulty, are not irreparable. (SportsChannel America Assocs. V. National Hockey League, 186 A.D.2d 417 [1st Dept. 1992].)

With respect to the balancing of equities, a preliminary injunction should only issue where “the irreparable injury to be sustained by the plaintiff is more burdensome to it than the harm caused to defendant through imposition of the injunction.” (Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 70 A.D.2d 1021, 1022 [3rd Dept. 1979].)

The Court’s Decision

The decision of whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. (Butt v. Malik, 106 A.D.3d 849, 850 [2nd Dept. 2013].)

A preliminary injunction substantially limits a party’s rights and is thus an extraordinary remedy requiring a special showing. (Margolies v. Encounter, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 475 [1977].) It has been characterized as a drastic remedy that should only be granted sparingly and cautiously. (McGuinn v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 489 [1st Dept. 1995].)

Courts are especially reluctant to grant such relief where a movant seeks a mandatory injunction, which mandates some affirmative act beyond maintenance of the status quo. (Maestro W. Chelsea SPE LLC v. Pradera Realty, Inc., 954 N.Y.S.2d 819, 830 [2012].) Absent an “imperative, urgent, or grave necessity,” courts are also unwilling to grant preliminary injunctions where the relief requested is the same as the ultimate relief sought in the underlying action. (Sithe Energies, Inc. v. 335 Madison Ave., LLC, 45 A.D.3d 469, 470 [1st Dept. 2007].)

The burden of proof to obtain a preliminary injunction is particularly high. (Laig v. Medanito, S.A., 130 A.D. 466 [1st Dept. 2015].) A preliminary injunction should not be granted where the ultimate relief sought is in doubt. (Rupert v. Rupert, 594 N.Y.S.2d 476, 477 [4th Dept. 1993].) However, injunctive relief should be issued where the court finds that if the “preliminary injunction is not granted, any subsequent judgment might be ineffectual.” (Schlosser v. United Presbyterian Home at Syosset, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 615 [2nd Dept. 1977].)

Documents for Application for Preliminary Injunction in New York

Sort By

Lisa De Silva v. The Pointe East Homeowners Association, Inc., Tjmg Properties, Llc document preview

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT (Motion #1)

6 pages

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 11:27 AM INDEX NO. 004221/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA LISA DE SILVA, Plaintiff, v. Index No. THE POINTE EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND TJMG P…

Case Name Lisa De Silva v. The Pointe East Homeowners Association, Inc., Tjmg Proper…