From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sachdev v. Metro Resources Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1998
254 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 19, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).


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 court hearing the motion ( see, Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted; and (3) that the equities are balanced in its favor ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Doe v. Axelrod, supra, at 750). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sachdev v. Metro Resources Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1998
254 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Sachdev v. Metro Resources Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RANJIT S. SACHDEV et al., Appellants, v. METRO RESOURCES INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Sumiko Enterprises, Inc. v. Town Realty Co.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter…