Dana Distribs., Inc. v Crown Imports, LLC

2008 NY Slip Op 01490 [48 AD3d 613]

February 19, 2008

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Dana Distributors, Inc., et al., Respondents, v CrownImports, LLC, et al., Appellants.

—[*1]McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Weiner, Andrew B.Kratenstein, and Marc E. Sorini of counsel), for appellants Crown Imports, LLC, and BartonBeers, Ltd., and Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andre R.Jaglom, Andrew Berger, John E. Greene, and Jamie B. W. Stecher of counsel), for appellantManhattan Beer Distributors, LLC (one brief filed).

McCarter & English, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Peter D. Stergios of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 55-c challengingthe termination of a beer distribution agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated May 4, 2007, which, after a hearing,granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for apreliminary injunction is denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on themerits, danger of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and a balance of the equitiesin its favor (see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680 [1996]; Family AffairHaircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745 [1985]). Here, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficientproof to show that they would suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminaryinjunction (see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680 [1996]; Family AffairHaircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745 [1985]; Golden v Steam Heat, 216 AD2d 440[1995]). Where, as here, a litigant can fully be recompensed by a monetary award, a preliminaryinjunction will not issue (see Price Paper & Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748, 750[1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs' motion for apreliminary [*2]injunction. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.