| Masjid Usman, Inc. v Beech 140, LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09437 [68 AD3d 942] |
| December 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Masjid Usman, Inc., Respondent, v Beech 140, LLC, et al.Appellants. |
—[*1] David E. Frazer, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated October 16,2008, as granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent of enjoiningthem from interfering with the plaintiff's leasehold interest in the subject premises during thependency of the action, and set an undertaking in the sum of only $1,800 pursuant to CPLR 6312(b).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sounddiscretion of the court hearing the motion" (Nelson, L.P. v Jannace, 248 AD2d 448,448-449 [1998]; see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; Automated WasteDisposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2008]). Moreover, " '[i]nthe absence of unusual or compelling circumstances, [the] court[s] [are] reluctant to disturb saiddetermination' " (Borenstein v Rochel Props., 176 AD2d 171, 172 [1991], quotingAfter Six v 201 E. 66th St. Assoc., 87 AD2d 153, 155 [1982]). In order to demonstrateentitlement to a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a probability of success onthe merits, (2) the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, and (3) abalance of the equities in favor of the movant (see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec.Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Montauk-StarIs. Realty Group v Deep Sea Yacht & Racquet Club, 111 AD2d 909, 910 [1985]). A courtevaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction must be mindful that "[t]he purpose of apreliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to determine the ultimate rights of theparties" (Matter of Wheaton/TMW Fourth Ave., LP v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 65AD3d 1051, 1052; see Coinmach Corp. v Alley Pond Owners Corp., 25 AD3d 642, 643[2006]).
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, consideration of the foregoing factors supports theSupreme Court's issuance of the preliminary injunction in this case. The plaintiff sustained itsburden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits by its submission of documentaryevidence suggesting that its use of the subject premises was lawful and in accordance with theterms of the lease. In this regard, the plaintiff was entitled to a reduced degree of proof withrespect to this issue, since the denial of a preliminary injunction in this case would disturb thestatus quo and likely render the final judgment [*2]ineffectual(see North Fork Preserve, Inc. v Kaplan, 31 AD3d 403, 406 [2006]; State of NewYork v City of New York, 275 AD2d 740, 741 [2000]; Gramercy Co. v Benenson,223 AD2d 497, 498 [1996]). Furthermore, the imminent threat of the plaintiff's loss of avaluable, long-term leasehold interest in the absence of an injunction satisfied the irreparableharm requirement for a preliminary injunction (see Chrysler Realty Corp. v Urban Inv. Corp.,100 AD2d 921, 923 [1984]). A balance of the equities likewise favors the granting ofpreliminary injunctive relief to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of the action(see e.g. S.P.Q.R. Co., Inc. v United Rockland Stairs, Inc., 57 AD3d 642, 643 [2008];Jiggetts v Perales, 202 AD2d 341, 342 [1994]).
Finally, the court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion (see Griffin v 70Portman Rd. Realty, Inc., 47 AD3d 883, 884 [2008]) in fixing the amount of the mandatoryundertaking to be posted by the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 6312 (b). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Millerand Roman, JJ., concur.