From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roushia v. Harvey [3d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 1, 1999
260 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 1, 1999

Appeals from an order and amended order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered November 20, 1997 and November 21, 1997 in Clinton County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Stafford, Trombley, Purcell, Owens Curtin P.C. (Thomas W. Plimpton of counsel), Plattsburgh, for appellants.

Miller Longuil P.C. (Richard C. Miller Jr. of counsel), Clifton Park, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, YESAWICH JR., CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


While working for defendant Harvey Company Inc. (hereinafter defendant) as an independent owner/truck driver, plaintiff purchased a 1996 Peterbilt tractor. Plaintiff put a $10,500 down payment on the tractor and defendant facilitated financing of the remainder of the purchase price, retaining legal title. Plaintiff made payments towards the indebtedness through deductions from wages paid by defendant for plaintiff's hauling services. After plaintiff ceased performing services for defendant, defendant repossessed the tractor. Plaintiff, in turn, commenced this action seeking, inter alia, return of the tractor. Thereafter, plaintiff made a motion for a preliminary injunction to,inter alia, restrain defendant and its president, defendant Olen Harvey, from selling or otherwise disposing of the tractor. Supreme Court granted the motion resulting in this appeal.

It is well settled that "in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, plaintiff ha[s] to show a probability of success, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in [his] favor" (Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862;see, Walsh v. St. Mary's Church, 248 A.D.2d 792, 793; Welcher v. Sobol, 222 A.D.2d 1001, 1002). Notwithstanding the tripartite test, if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and may be fully compensated by monetary damages, a preliminary injunction will not be granted (see,Cliff v. R.R.S. Inc., 207 A.D.2d 17, 20).

Although plaintiff alleges a cause of action for replevin, in our view because he avers that he has located a purchaser for the tractor and intends to sell it, it appears that monetary damages will be sufficient to compensate him. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should not have been granted.

MIKOLL, YESAWICH JR., CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order and amended order are reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and motion denied.


Summaries of

Roushia v. Harvey [3d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 1, 1999
260 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Roushia v. Harvey [3d Dept 1999

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ROUSHIA, Respondent, v. OLEN HARVEY et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 706

Citing Cases

Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. Envtl. Risk Solutions, LLC

"Notwithstanding the tripartite test, if [SAIC] has an adequate remedy at law and may be fully compensated by…

Samuel-Rozenbaum USA, Inc. v. Felcher

Accordingly, personal jurisdiction was properly obtained pursuant to CPLR 302. The grant of plaintiff's…