Blinds & Carpet Gallery, Inc. v E.E.M. Realty, Inc.
2011 NY Slip Op 01609 [82 AD3d 691]
March 1, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Blinds and Carpet Gallery, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v
E.E.M.Realty, Inc., Respondent.

[*1]John C. Lin, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Marc Z. Newman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Koss& Schonfeld [Simcha D. Schonfeld], of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a purported agreement to offer alease of certain commercial premises, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 9, 2010, asdenied their motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from transferring title of the subjectpremises to a nonparty.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In order to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate, byclear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparableinjury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of the equitiesfavors the movant's position (see Tatumv Newell Funding, LLC, 63 AD3d 911, 912 [2009]; Gluck v Hoary, 55 AD3d 668 [2008]; Apa Sec., Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d502, 503 [2007]). The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sounddiscretion of the Supreme Court (seeAutomated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 1073[2008]; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d485, 486 [2006]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunctionbecause the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits (see Tatum v Newell Funding, LLC, 63 AD3d at 912; Gluck vHoary, 55 AD3d at 668) or that they would suffer irreparable injury if the preliminaryinjunction was not granted (see Dixon vMalouf, 61 AD3d 630 [2009]; Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-HudsonWaste, Inc., 50 AD3d at 1073; Matos v City of New York, 21 AD3d 936, 937 [2005]; 1659Ralph Ave. Laundromat Corp. v Ben David Enters., 307 AD2d 288, 289 [2003]). Covello,J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.