See also Diehl Sons, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., 426 F. Supp. 110 (E.D.N Y 1976). Plaintiff's claim under the New York statutes suffers a similar defect, although we are willing to assume for purposes of this motion that section 198 of the New York General Business Law is a legislative authorization for issuance of injunctions without regard to the monetary compensability of the injuries alleged: plaintiff must still demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, even as a matter of State law. See, e.g., City of Buffalo v. Mangan, 49 A.D.2d 697, 370 N YS.2d 771 (4th Dept. 1975); DeLury v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 378 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1st Dept. 1975). The predicate for relief is at least a claim that plaintiff's termination was either not pursuant to contract or understanding between the parties, or was the result of some proscribed conduct on the part of defendant.

Thus, having failed to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality ( see, City of New York v. State of New York, supra, at 485; Matter of Van Berkel v. Power, supra, at 40), we find that Supreme Court correctly determined that there was not a likelihood of success on petitioners' constitutional challenge. As to the showing of irreparable injury and the balancing of equities, we find that the loss to the out-of-State students, should they be prohibited from attending the designated schools during this period, far outweighs the loss to petitioners ( see, Melvin v. Union Coll., 195 A.D.2d 447) and that the alleged cost to the taxpayers does not constitute the type of irreparable injury warranting the issuance of a preliminary injunction ( see, DeLury v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 599). Accordingly, we find that the motion for a preliminary injunction was appropriately denied.

The IAS Court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, petitioners having failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm and a balancing of the equities in their favor ( Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517). A preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy that should not be granted unless a clear legal right thereto is shown ( DeLury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 596-597), which petitioners have failed to do. They also have failed to show irreparable injury absent the requested injunctive relief, the record revealing that they were aware of the April 1, 1995 City-residency deadline no later than October 25, 1994, and therefore had ample time within which to make a reasoned decision whether to move to the City so as to avail themselves of the five-point credit.

Accordingly, irreparable harm has not been demonstrated and a preliminary injunction was not warranted (Hill v Dinkins, Sup Ct, N Y County, Feb. 8, 1991, index No. 3093/91, mot for preliminary app injunction denied No. M-780, App. Div., 1st Dept, Feb. 20, 1991; see, Cohen v Department of Social Servs., 30 N.Y.2d 571, affg 37 A.D.2d 626; Suffolk County Assn. of Mun. Empls. v County of Suffolk, 163 A.D.2d 469; DeLury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595).

Thus, the determination made by the respondent agency after the hearing effective June 20, 1989 was such a "final determination" and petitioner failed, therefore, to show its likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, petitioner did not show irreparable harm to it in the absence of a stay since monetary harm which can be compensated by damages does not constitute irreparable injury (DeLury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 599). Finally, a balancing of the equities favors protection of the limited public funds available for this vital nutritional program, not the interest of petitioner which has been found guilty after a hearing of misappropriating these public funds.

In addition, the claim that plaintiff (and the other landowners in Chin) has an exclusive easement was closely contested by defendants in opposition to the motion. While we express no opinion as to the viability of this claim, certainly, plaintiff has failed to establish a clear likelihood of success on the merits upon this application (see, DeLury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 596). Even more importantly, plaintiff has not established any irreparable injury resulting from defendants' use of the street.

Respondents' appeal from Special Term's order granting petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction is now before this court. One of the conditions which petitioner must meet in order to establish its entitlement to a preliminary injunction is a showing of irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction, and the irreparable harm sustained by petitioner must be more burdensome than the harm caused to respondents ( Metropolitan Package Store Assn. v Koch, 80 A.D.2d 940). Petitioner correctly conceded that monetary loss alone is insufficient to constitute irreparable harm, since damages ordinarily constitute an adequate remedy (see, e.g., Wilhelmina Models v Iman Abdulmajid, 67 A.D.2d 853; DeLury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 599). It is asserted by petitioner that irreparable harm lies in the effect the statute has had in forcing nonvested Tier III employees to make premature decisions as to whether to continue their careers with the State. Thus, it is argued, an employee who had not decided to spend his or her entire career in State service was compelled to choose between leaving State service prior to the effective date of the statute or forfeiting the right to receive his or her contributions to the pension system until age 62 or death. Petitioner contends that those employees should not be compelled to make such a choice until such time as the constitutionality of the statute is finally determined.

The claimed loss of good will is measurable in monetary damages (NY Damages Law, § 200, p 200), and the disruption of plaintiffs' practice poses no more severe a loss than most problems attendant upon any employee's dismissal. Should plaintiffs ultimately prevail in their suit, full compensation for any loss incurred can be achieved by money damages and reinstatement of the corporate plaintiff to its former position ( DeLury v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 603). Plaintiffs themselves implicitly acknowledge that any hurt inflicted is reparable for the ultimate relief being sought is "reinstatement and/or damages".

In so holding, we hasten to emphasize that, should respondent subsequently establish to the satisfaction of the County Court that the road in question is a highway for which respondent has the duty of maintenance and repair and that, as required by section 147 High. of the Highway Law, the county superintendent has directed and the town board has authorized the proposed work to be done, then the preliminary injunction should be vacated and the project should be allowed to proceed. Under those circumstances, respondent will have satisfactorily established its legal right to repair the road, and plaintiff will be left to seek damages in accordance with section 148 High. of the Highway Law should it ultimately result that he is harmed by the project (cf. De Lury v City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs; preliminary injunction granted, without prejudice to a further application by respondent to vacate the injunction, if it be so advised. Mahoney, P.J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

It is now well established that an employee holding permanent status in the classified service may be suspended as the result of abolition of positions for reasons of economy, provided only that the abolitions are necessary and made in good faith (Civil Service Law, §§ 80, 80-a; Matter of Schwab v. Bowen, 80 Misc.2d 763, affd. 51 A.D.2d 574 [2d Dept., 1976]; Matter of Felder v. Fullen, 27 N.Y.S.2d 699, affd. 263 App. Div. 986, affd. 289 N.Y. 658; Mtr. of Danker v. Dept. of Health, 153 Misc. 502, affd. 242 App. Div. 765 [1st Dept., 1935]; Matter ofBrizzolara v. McKenzie, 166 Misc. 282 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., 1938]; Matter of Reilly v. Smith, 92 Misc. 309 [Sup. Ct., N Y Co., 1915]). See also DeLury v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595, 601 (1st Dept., 1975), citing with approval the reasoning in Matter of Schwab v. Bowen, (supra). The question remains, however, whether it is permissible to accomplish the necessary economies, under similar circumstances, by the suspension of employees without the abolition of their positions.