Opinion
No. 16073-16074-16074A Index No. 653586/19 Case Nos. 2021-01439 2021-03673 2021-03686
06-02-2022
Karen Asprea, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Whitehall Interiors NYC, LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Gregory A. Sioris, New York, for appellant. Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Purchase (Jeffrey J. Fox of counsel), for respondents.
Gregory A. Sioris, New York, for appellant.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Purchase (Jeffrey J. Fox of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about March 5, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 29, 2021 and September 9, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, respectively, granted, on default, defendants' motions to compel discovery and for discovery sanctions, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from nonappealable orders.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction to defendants (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 [2005]). The court properly found that defendants demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, i.e., that plaintiff had violated the parties' agreements. The court also properly found that defendants were in danger of irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction, as it is well settled that the "loss of goodwill of a viable, ongoing business may constitute irreparable harm warranting the grant of preliminary injunctive relief" (Advent Software, Inc. v SEI Global Servs., Inc., 195 A.D.3d 498, 499 [1st Dept 2021]). The balance of the equities also favored defendants, as plaintiff will not be prejudiced given the narrow scope of the injunction, and the fact that she is enjoined only from conducting business that would likely be in violation of the parties' agreements.
The appeals from the discovery and sanctions orders are dismissed. These orders are nonappealable because they were entered upon plaintiff's default (CPLR 5511; see e.g. Manrique v Delgado, 195 A.D.3d 554 [1st Dept 2021]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.