Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 2006-10778.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2006-10778. |
| Citation | 857 N.Y.S.2d 648,2008 NY Slip Op 04042,50 A.D.3d 1072 |
| Parties | AUTOMATED WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. MID-HUDSON WASTE, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"In order to obtain a preliminary injunction (see CPLR 6301), the moving party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) an irreparable injury absent the granting of injunctive relief, and (3) a balancing of the equities in its favor" (Wiener v Life Style Futon, Inc., 48 AD3d 458 [2008]; see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; Iron Mtn. Info. Mgt., Inc. v Pullman, 41 AD3d 656, 657 [2007]). "`The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending determination of the action'" (City of Long Beach v Sterling Am. Capital, LLC, 40 AD3d 902, 903 [2007], quoting Kelley v Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 596 [2007]). "The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" (Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]; see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604 [2004]). Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that they would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction were not granted (see EdCia Corp. v McCormack, 44 AD3d 991, 994 [2007]; Matos v City of New York, 21 AD3d 936, 937 [2005]; 1659 Ralph Ave. Laundromat Corp. v Ben David Enters., 307 AD2d 288, 289 [2003]; Marders the Landscape Store v Barylski, 303 AD2d 465 [2003]; Neos v Lacey, 291 AD2d 434, 435 [2002]). The plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court was required to hold a hearing on its motion is without merit (see CPLR 6312 [c]; Marders the Landscape Store v Barylski, 303 AD2d at 466). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lazaro v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
...parties or res at issue would result from a granting of provisional injunctive relief (see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 857 N.Y.S.2d 648 [2d Dept 2008] ; Matter of 35 New York City Police Officers v. City of New York, 34 AD3392, 826 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1s......
-
Huntington Vill. Dental, PC v. Rathbauer
...parties or res at issue would result from a granting of provisional injunctive relief ( see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 857 N.Y.S.2d 648 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of 35 New York City Police Officers v. City of New York, 34 AD3d 392, 826 N.Y.S.2d 22 [......
-
Comm'r of the N.Y.S. Dep't of Transp. v. Polite
...a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor (see Doe v. Axelrod , 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988] ; Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc. , 50 AD3d 1072, 1072-1073 [2008] ; Petervary v. Bubnis , 30 AD3d 498 [2006] ). "A party seeking the drastic remedy of a preliminary inju......
-
159 Smith, LLC v. Boreum Hill Prop. Holdings, LLC
...668 N.Y.S.2d 936 ; see Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272 ; Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 857 N.Y.S.2d 648 ). "The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merit......