Matter of Gault

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Heisler v. Gingras

    238 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 12 times

    The fundamental purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo in an action, or in this case a proceeding ( see, Matter of Gault [United States Bobsled Skeleton Fedn.], 179 A.D.2d 881, 882, n 1), until a decision is reached on the merits ( see, CPLR 6301; Gambar Enters. v. Kelly Servs., 69 A.D.2d 297, 306; Tucker v. Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322, 325-326; 67 N.Y. Jur 2d, Injunctions, § 11, at 347-348). Once that decision is made, the need for provisional relief ends and any order granting a preliminary injunction expires ( see, Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 A.D.2d 735; 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 6301.05, at 63-14).

  2. 10415 Commerce, LLC v. BBC Dev., LLC

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 30796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    In establishing these elements, plaintiff must show a "clear right" based upon affidavits and other proof which "factually and convincingly" show that the court should exercise its discretion in his favor. Matter of Gault v United States Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, 179 AD2d 881 (3rd Dept 1992); Armbruster v Gipp, 103 AD2d 1014 (4th Dept 1984). The likelihood of success element need not proved to a certainty, Cooperstown Capital LLC v Patton, 60 AD3d 1251 (3rd Dept 2009), and "'the mere fact that there indeed may be questions of fact for trial does not preclude a court from exercising its discretion in granting an injunction'".

  3. Shelmerdine v. Myers

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 34116 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    In establishing these elements, plaintiffs must show a "clear right" based upon affidavits and other proof which "factually and convincingly" show that the court should exercise its discretion in their favor. Matter of Gault v United States Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, 179 AD2d 881 (3rd Dept 1992); Armbruster v Gipp, 103 AD2d 1014 (4th Dept 1984). The likelihood of success element need not proved to a certainty, Cooperstown Capital LLC v Patton, 60 AD3d 1251 (3rd Dept 2009), and "'the mere fact that there indeed may be questions of fact for trial does not preclude a court from exercising its discretion in granting an injunction'".