From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mosseri v. Fried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-10994, 2000-06044

Argued December 18, 2001.

December 31, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated February 2, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied their motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from doing construction work on certain premises.

Israel Goldberg, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Joseph Frost, New York, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated April 19, 2000, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order (see, CPLR 5520[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see, Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750). To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movants "must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) danger of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted; and (3) a balance of the equities in [their] favor" (Nelson, L.P. v. Jannace, 248 A.D.2d 448, 449; see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the action. To satisfy this burden, the plaintiffs were required to "demonstrate a clear right to relief which is 'plain from the undisputed facts'" (Blueberries Gourmet v. Aris Realty Corp., 255 A.D.2d 348, 350, quoting Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745, 747). Since the facts of this case are sharply disputed, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear right to injunctive relief. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from doing construction work on certain premises (see, Sumiko Enters. v. Town Realty Co., 259 A.D.2d 483).

ALTMAN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mosseri v. Fried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Mosseri v. Fried

Case Details

Full title:SALOMON MOSSERI, ET AL., Appellants, v. JOSEF FRIED, ET AL., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 31, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 794

Citing Cases

Dance Showcase II v. Harvestime Tabernacle

In order to satisfy the burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, the movant is…

SOSA v. MEYERS

that a preliminary injunction, pursuant to CPLR § 6301, "may be granted . . . when the party seeking such…