Case ID: ad2d_245/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stuart Barrett et al., Appellants, v Edward Scharf et al., Respondents.
    [666 NYS2d 23]
   —In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 27, 1996, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the court hearing the motion (see, Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750). To obtain a preliminary injunction the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and (3) that the equities are balanced in their favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862; Doe v Axelrod, supra, at 750). Based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was an improvident exercise of discretion. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.