It is well established that the determination to grant an order of attachment rests entirely within the exclusive discretion of the Court. Aside from unsupported conjecture, defendants have not provided this Court with a sound reason to deny the requested provisional relief. Therefore, that branch of plaintiffs' motion seeking an order of attachment is granted. The second branch of plaintiffs' motion seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from dissipating assets. A review of the applicable factors finds that plaintiff has demonstrated irreparable injury in the absence of the requested relief.
Irreparable injury is generally one which an award of monetary damages is insufficient.
This standard has alternatively been termed as a requirement that there exists no adequate remedy at law. As plaintiffs seek a money judgment in this action, they appear to have an adequate remedy at law which would preclude the granting of a preliminary injunction. However, in the rare occasion where it is demonstrated that a party is dissipating assets in an effort to frustrate a judgment a court may issue an injunction. Plaintiffs have established that defendants are dissipating assets. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence indicating that assets have been transferred without consideration by defendants to other banks.