Summary
In Mangar, the plaintiff ultimately sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's alleged easement.
Summary of this case from Luk v. BriedjOpinion
2012-11509, Index No. 1159/12.
10-01-2014
Anil MANGAR, et al., appellants, v. Shelly DEOSARAN, respondent.
Glasser & McGuire, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Crystal Villasenor and Jack Glasser of counsel), for appellants. Mordente Law Firm LLC, Fresh Meadows, N.Y. (Anthony R. Mordente and Blake Abrash of counsel), for respondent.
Glasser & McGuire, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Crystal Villasenor and Jack Glasser of counsel), for appellants.
Mordente Law Firm LLC, Fresh Meadows, N.Y. (Anthony R. Mordente and Blake Abrash of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Opinion In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant from interfering with an alleged easement over certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated September 28, 2012, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with the alleged easement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party must establish: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of the equities favors the moving party's position (see Arcamone–Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 623, 624, 920 N.Y.S.2d 362 ; Rowland v. Dushin, 82 A.D.3d 738, 917 N.Y.S.2d 702 ). “The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Arcamone–Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc., 83 A.D.3d at 625, 920 N.Y.S.2d 362 ; see 91–54 Gold Rd., LLC v. Cross–Deegan Realty Corp., 93 A.D.3d 649, 939 N.Y.S.2d 555 ; Reichman v. Reichman, 88 A.D.3d 680, 930 N.Y.S.2d 262 ).
Here, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction and that a balancing of the equities favors their position (see Rowland v. Dushin, 82 A.D.3d at 739, 917 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; Wild Oaks, LLC v. Joseph A. Beehan, Jr. Gen. Contr., Inc., 77 A.D.3d 924, 926, 910 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; Solow v. Liebman, 175 A.D.2d 120, 121, 572 N.Y.S.2d 19 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.