Zodkevitch v. Feibush

32 Citing cases

  1. Fu v. Lam

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 31129 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    Therefore the court denies her motion insofar as it seeks access to records without prejudice to a future motion for similar relief upon a showing that WSI has breached Investment Advisory Agreement ¶ 5 and that plaintiff is or imminently will be irreparably harmed by her nonreceipt of those reports on a timely and regular basis. C.P.L.R. §§ 6301, 6312(a); Zodkevitch v. Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424, 425 (1st Dep't 2008); OraSure Tech., Inc. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2007); U.S. Re Cos., Inc. v. Scheerer, 41 A.D.3d at 155; Wall St. Garage Parking Corp. v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 10 A.D.3d 223, 228-29 (1st Dep't 2004). See Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d at 840.

  2. Meissner v. Yun

    126 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 12 times

    Plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to injunctive relief (see City of New York v. Untitled LLC, 51 A.D.3d 509, 511–512, 859 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept.2008] ). He did not demonstrate a likelihood that he would ultimately prevail on the merits of his claim. Nor did he demonstrate that he or Manhattan Review would suffer irreparable harm, since he failed to show that an award of money damages would not be fair compensation ( see Zodkevitch v. Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424, 854 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept.2008] ). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

  3. Metropolitan v. Perini

    50 A.D.3d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

    Additionally, the balance of equities does not tip in appellants' favor, as respondent has not been paid the contract balance for over six years. Since appellants failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of the equities tips in their favor, both necessary elements for preliminary injunctive relief, we need not address the issue of whether they demonstrated that they would sustain irreparable injury absent injunctive relief ( see Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 AD3d 424). Furthermore, contrary to appellants' position, they are not entitled to an offset because of an interim payment they made towards respondent's extra work.

  4. Canaanite LLC v. Wolfe

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 33301 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    However, plaintiff has not established here that the Deposit funds exist in an identifiable specific fund whose contents could be protected with injunctive relief. Further, notwithstanding plaintiffs arguments pursuant to the Lien Law, there has not been sufficient showing that an award of money damages would not adequately compensate it (see Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424 [1st Dept 2008]) US Re Cos v Scheerer. 41 A.D.3d 152, 155 [1st Dept 2007]); ERS Enters v. Empire Holdings, 286 A.D.2d 206, 207 [1st Dept 2001]). Because plaintiff has not established this necessary element, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

  5. Bonito v. Empire Chesapeake Holdings LLC

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 30295 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    "Where the plaintiff can be fully compensated by a monetary award, an injunction will not issue because no irreparable harm will be sustained in the absence of such relief." Mar v Liquid Mgmt. partners, LLC, 62 A.D.3d 762, 763 (2nd Dept. 2009); see Meissner v Yun, 126 A.D.3d 565 (1st Dept. 2015); GFI Securiteis, LLC v Tradition Asiel Securities, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 586 (1st Dept. 2009); Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dept. 2008).

  6. Lexington Assocs. v. The City of New York

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32320 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Although that may be the rule in the Second Department, the First Department requires that all three elements be satisfied (see City of New York v Tominovik, 2020 NY Slip Op 30158[U], ** 4-5 [Sup Ct. Queens County 2020], citing City of New York v Untitled LLC, 51 A.D.3d 509, 511 [1st Dept 2008] ["the motion court's summary denial gave inadequate consideration to the three-prong test for preliminary injunctive relief']). Importantly, defendants fail to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm, since they failed to show that an award of money damages, such as a civil penalty, would not be fair compensation (see Meissner v Yun, 126 A.D.3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2015]; Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2008]). As such, that portion of the counterclaim seeking a permanent injunction is denied.

  7. Lexington Assocs. v. Comm'r of Dep't of Buildings of City of New York

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32321 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Although that may be the rule in the Second Department, the First Department requires that all three elements be satisfied (see City of New York v Tominovik, 2020 NY Slip Op 30158[U], ** 4-5 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2020], citing City of New York v Untitled LLC, 51 A.D.3d 509, 511 [Ist Dept 2008] ["the motion court's summary denial gave inadequate consideration to the three-prong test for preliminary injunctive relief']). Importantly, defendants fail to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm, since they failed to show that an award of money damages, such as a civil penalty, would not be fair compensation (see Meissner v Yun, 126 A.D.3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2015]; Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 A.D.3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2008]). As such, that portion of the counterclaim seeking a permanent injunction is denied.

  8. Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. Albis

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    "Where the plaintiffs can be fully compensated by a monetary award, an injunction will not issue because no irreparable harm will be sustained in the absence of such relief." Mar v Liquid Mgmt. partners, LLC, 62 AD3d 762, 763 (2nd Dept. 2009); see Meissner v Yun, 126 AD3d 565 (1st Dept. 2015); Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 AD3d 424 (1st Dept. 2008). For a summary of the allegations on which this action is premised, the court refers to the factual recitation contained in its decision and order dated May 4, 2020.

  9. Asprea v. Whitehall Interiors NYC, LLC

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 30663 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    "Where the plaintiffs can be fully compensated by a monetary award, an injunction will not issue because no irreparable harm will be sustained in the absence of such relief." Mar v Liquid Mgmt. partners, LLC, 62 AD3d 762, 763 (2nd Dept. 2009); see Meissner v Yun, 126 AD3d 565 (1st Dept. 2015); Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 AD3d 424 (1st Dept. 2008). Here, the movants have met this burden.

  10. Enfeld Holdings v. Carroll

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 30697 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    "Where the plaintiffs can be fully compensated by a monetary award, an injunction will not issue because no irreparable harm will be sustained in the absence of such relief." Mar v Liquid Mgmt. partners, LLC, 62 AD3d 762, 763 (2nd Dept. 2009); see Meissner v Yun, 126 AD3d 565 (1st Dept. 2015); Zodkevitch v Feibush, 49 AD3d 424 (1st Dept. 2008). More specifically, where a plaintiff's "interest in real estate is commercial, and the harm that they fear is the loss of their investment, as opposed to loss of their home or a unique piece of property in which they have an unquantifiable interest, they can be compensated by damages and therefore cannot demonstrate irreparable harm."