Opinion
21 CA 21-01043
03-11-2022
RONALD BENDERSON 1995 TRUST, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (R. ANTHONY RUPP, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (DAVID J. MCNAMARA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (R. ANTHONY RUPP, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (DAVID J. MCNAMARA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief following the alleged breach of a commercial lease between the parties. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for various forms of injunctive relief. Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought a preliminary injunction.
In reviewing an order deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, "we should not determine finally the merits of the action and should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by [the motion court] but should review only the determination of whether that discretion has been abused" ( Esi-Data Connections, Inc. v. Proulx , 185 A.D.2d 705, 705, 587 N.Y.S.2d 888 [4th Dept. 1992] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Delphi Hospitalist Servs. LLC v. Patrick , 163 A.D.3d 1441, 1441-1442, 80 N.Y.S.3d 616 [4th Dept. 2018] ). We conclude, on the record before us, that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought a preliminary injunction.