Opinion
CA 02-00162
June 14, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Boniello, III, J.), entered June 29, 2001, which granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
RONALD D. ANTON, CORPORATION COUNSEL, NIAGARA FALLS (RICHARD ZUCCO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DUKE, HOLZMAN, YAEGER PHOTIADIS LLP, BUFFALO (GEORGE S. VAN NEST OF COUNSEL), DAVIS, AUGELLO, MATTELIANO GERSTEN, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the preliminary injunction is vacated.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In order to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs had to establish, inter alia, "the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld" ( Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750). Here, the conclusory allegations of plaintiffs with respect to irreparable injury "are insufficient to support [their] motion for a preliminary injunction" ( Kaufman v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 97 A.D.2d 925, 926, affd 61 N.Y.2d 930; see Neos v. Lacey, 291 A.D.2d 434; Sutton, DeLeeuw, Clark Darcy v. Beck, 155 A.D.2d 962, 963; Matter of Baran v. Otterbein, 84 A.D.2d 928, 929).