Summary
In Sumiko, the plaintiff commenced an action for a judgment declaring that an option period under a certain agreement between the parties did not expire until a specific time later than that claimed by the defendants, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's rights under the agreement.
Summary of this case from Spivak ex rel. Eyeball On the Floor, Inc. v. BertrandOpinion
March 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the court hearing the motion ( see, Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750; Sachdev v. Metro Resources, 254 A.D.2d 407). In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate, inter alia, that it is likely to ultimately succeed on the merits of the action ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Sachdev v. Metro Resources, supra; Nelson, L.P. v. Jannace, 248 A.D.2d 448). To sustain its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, the movant must demonstrate a clear right to relief which is "plain from the undisputed facts" ( Blueberries Gourmet v. Aris Realty Corp., 255 A.D.2d 348; Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745).
Applying these principles here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Although the option agreement executed by the parties in December 1995 stated on its face that the option period would expire on December 31, 1998, in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants submitted documentary evidence indicating that the parties actually agreed upon a two-year option period, to expire on December 31, 1997. The defendants produced an affidavit from the plaintiffs former attorney, stating that it was his understanding that the term of the option agreement would be a period of two years. In view of the sharp factual dispute regarding whether the December 31, 1998, date, which appears in the option agreement is a scrivener's error which may be corrected by reformation of the agreement ( see, Nash v. Kornblum, 12 N.Y.2d 42; Shults v. Geary, 241 A.D.2d 850; Lent v. Cea, 209 A.D.2d 820), we cannot conclude that the plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating an ultimate likelihood of success on the merits.
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.