Summary
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm from an alleged breach of a distribution agreement
Summary of this case from World Wide Polymers v. Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.Opinion
No. 2007-05054.
February 19, 2008.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 55-c challenging the termination of a beer distribution agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated May 4, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
McDermott Will Emery LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Weiner, Andrew B. Kratenstein, and Marc E. Sorini of counsel), for appellants Crown Imports, LLC, and Barton Beers, Ltd., and Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse Hirschtritt LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andre R. Jaglom, Andrew Berger, John E. Greene, and Jamie B. W. Stecher of counsel), for appellant Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC (one brief filed).
McCarter English, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Peter D. Stergios of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and a balance of the equities in its favor ( see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745). Here, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient proof to show that they would suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminary injunction ( see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745; Golden v Steam Heat, 216 AD2d 440). Where, as here, a litigant can fully be recompensed by a monetary award, a preliminary injunction will not issue ( see Price Paper Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748, 750). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.