Summary
reversing this Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction in plenary action assailing a factoring agreement
Summary of this case from Am. Water Restoration, Inc. v. AKF Inc.Opinion
707 CA 20-01231
11-12-2021
AH WINES, INC., Great Coliseum, L.L.C., the Great Coliseum, L.L.C., Great Coliseum, L.L.C., Doing Business as AH Wines, Lodi City Winery, Lodi Wine Company, Winery Direct Distributors and Jeffrey Wayne Hansen, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. C6 CAPITAL FUNDING LLC, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, NEW YORK CITY (JEFFREY S. BOXER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. THE BASILE LAW FIRM, P.C., JERICHO (CATHERINE MCGOVERN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, NEW YORK CITY (JEFFREY S. BOXER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
THE BASILE LAW FIRM, P.C., JERICHO (CATHERINE MCGOVERN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the preliminary injunction is vacated.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to vacate a judgment by confession and thereafter moved by order to show cause to enjoin defendant from enforcing that judgment. In appeal No. 1, defendant purports to appeal from a decision granting the motion. In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from the order entered pursuant to that decision.
At the outset, we note that the appeal from the decision in appeal No. 1 must be dismissed because it was taken from a "mere decision, from which no appeal lies" ( Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti , 39 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 832 N.Y.S.2d 840 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see Garcia v. Town of Tonawanda , 194 A.D.3d 1479, 1479-1480, 143 N.Y.S.3d 635 [4th Dept. 2021] ).
With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we agree with defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of the injunction (see Cangemi v. Yeager , 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 128 N.Y.S.3d 708 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Eastview Mall, LLC v. Grace Holmes, Inc. , 182 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 122 N.Y.S.3d 848 [4th Dept. 2020] ). We conclude that there was no showing of harm to plaintiffs aside from economic loss, and "[e]conomic loss, which is compensable by money damages, does not constitute irreparable harm" ( Mangovski v. DiMarco , 175 A.D.3d 947, 949, 107 N.Y.S.3d 235 [4th Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In light of our determination, defendant's remaining contentions are academic.