| Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03392 [95 AD3d 808] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Leon Behar et al., Appellants, v Quaker Ridge Golf Club,Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1]
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Robert A. Spolzinoof counsel), for respondent.
In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for nuisance and trespass, theplaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.),entered January 25, 2011, which denied that branch of their motion which was to preliminarilyenjoin the use of the second hole of the defendant's golf course, and (2) an order of the samecourt entered July 14, 2011, which denied their motion for leave to renew the motion for apreliminary injunction.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the preliminary injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs were required to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balanceof the equities in their favor (see CPLR 6301; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748[1988]; Brach v Harmony Servs.,Inc., 93 AD3d 748 [2d Dept 2012]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincingevidence, that irreparable injury would result if the provisional relief at issue were withheld, andthat a balancing of the equities weighed in their favor (see CPLR 6301; Doe vAxelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; Berkoski v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Southampton, 67 AD3d840, 844 [2009]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew. "Amotion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion thatwould change the prior determination, and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure topresent such facts on the prior motion" (Marrero v Crystal Nails, 77 AD3d 798, 799 [2010]; see Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 985, 986 [2010]; CPLR 2221 [e]). Here, the new facts offeredwould not have changed the prior determination. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ.,concur.