Opinion
2003-10306.
May 2, 2005.
In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated September 26, 2003, denying its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Before: Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the moving party first establishes (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) that irreparable injury will occur absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities favors the movant ( see CPLR 6301; W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 NY2d 496). Where the facts are sharply disputed, those elements cannot be established and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied ( see Morley Distribs. v. Merinberg, 216 AD2d 544; Price Paper Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 AD2d 748; Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747).
Here, the facts surrounding the termination of the defendant's employment from the plaintiff corporation are sharply disputed. As a result, the court could not determine that a balancing of the equities favors the plaintiff. Thus, the preliminary injunction was properly denied.