Opinion
March 3, 2009.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 12, 2008, which granted defendant's cross motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.
In addition to showing that the arbitration award could be rendered ineffectual, a party seeking an injunction in aid of arbitration must demonstrate the traditional factors for injunctive relief under CPLR article 63 (CPLR 7502 [c]; see SG Cowen Sec. Corp. v Messih, 224 F3d 79, 83-85 [2d Cir 2000] [construing CPLR 7502 (c) and CPLR 7501 and concluding that in addition to a showing that the arbitration award could be rendered ineffectual the traditional requirements for injunctive relief apply to a request under CPLR 7502 (c) for injunctive relief]). Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to satisfy two of those elements — a likelihood of success on the merits, and irreparable injury.
Defendant has met this standard. As to the merits, defendant claims to have an enforceable agreement for a supply contract to purchase LNG from the parties' mutually owned company. While the price term in that agreement is not definite on its face, we find defendant has made a sufficient showing that the term can be supplied from public price indices and industry practice. Given the wording of the price provision and the parties' clear intent to enter into a supply/output contract, the contract is not too vague to be enforced ( Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483, cert denied 498 US 816). Moreover, the loss of rights to purchase a commodity into the future (the term of the agreement is 20 years) would result in a loss which, at the least, would be difficult to quantify ( Gundermann Gundermann Ins. v Brassill, 46 AD3d 615, 617 [upholding finding of irreparable injury where claimed damages were "difficult to quantify"]). Accordingly, defendant made a sufficient showing of irreparable injury.