Source: http://barnespc.com/news-primer-injunctions.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:19:04+00:00

Document:
Establishing the second prong of an injunction application can be difficult because the vast majority of cases seek monetary damages. The general rule is that one pursuing a money action is generally not entitled to a preliminary injunction because an adequate remedy at law exists.vi Two exceptions to the general rule warrant elaboration.
The first exception to this rule exists when movant’s cause of action is directed to a specific fund which is “the subject of the action.”vii A myriad of cases hold a monetary damages claim directed at a specific fund is viable as an irreparable injury worthy of an injunction because the property, not the value of the property, is the true subject of the action. See Societe Anonyme v. Pierre A. Fellerviii (Appellate Division rules that in an action disputing the ownership of shares of a cooperative apartment, plaintiff was entitled to pendente lite injunctive relief since irreparable injury may arise if the defendant was not enjoined from transferring the cooperative’s shares pending final resolution of the dispute); Rolnick v. Rolnickix (in an action to impose a constructive trust upon the stock of defendant corporations, the Court ruled that a disposition of the stock shares would render any judgment ineffectual, ruling that an injunction maintaining the status quo would not unduly burden the defendant, yet the denial of such relief could do irreparable harm and cause substantial prejudice to movant); Brennan v. Barnesx (Court grants temporary restraining order precluding defendants from transferring the subject stock shares, despite sharp factual differences in the parties’ respective affidavits, so to maintain status quo); and Bronx County Trust v. O’Connorxi (in a complaint seeking to impose a trust upon a sum generated by the sale of certain shares of a Tobacco Company, premised upon procurement of the shares through fraud and undue influence, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s Order denying a motion to continue the pendente lite relief, restraining the defendants from disposing of such proceeds of sale).
However, the traditional concept of irreparable harm, which applies to private parties seeking injunctive relief, does not apply in the public interest field. Thus, when the Attorney General is authorized by statute to seek injunctive relief to enjoin fraudulent or illegal acts, no showing of irreparable harm is necessary. State of New York v. Terry Buick Inc., 137 Misc.2d 290, 520 N.Y.S.2d 497 (Sup Ct. 1987).
Third, as for balancing the equities, the Court must evaluate the harm that each party will suffer with and without the injunctive relief. Prevailing Second Department precedent requires that movant demonstrate that the harm which it would suffer from the denial of the motion is decidedly greater than the harm its opponent would suffer if the preliminary injunction were granted.xiv In this analysis, a thorough client affidavit is imperative to a successful application. The preliminary injunction application is not the time to be circumspect with respect to all of the facts which have influenced the client’s decision to seek provisional relief.
ii Hightower v. Reid, 5 A.D.3d 440, 772 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2nd Dep’t 2004).
iii Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1988).
iv Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1990).
v Terrell v. Terrell, 279 A.D.2d 301, 719 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dep’t 2001).
vi Walsh v. Design Concepts, Ltd., 221 A.D.2d 454, 633 N.Y.S.2d 579 (2nd Dep’t 1995).
vii Ma v. Lien, 198 A.D.2d 186, 604 N.Y.S.2d 84 (1st Dep’t 1993).
viii 112 A.D.2d 837,492 N.Y.S.2d 756 (1st Dep’t 1985).
ix 230 N.Y.S.2d 789 (Queens Sup. 1962).
x 232 N.Y.S. 112 (Albany Sup. 1928).
xi 220 A.D. 340, 221 N.Y.S. 414 (1st Dep’t 1927).
xii 2003 WL 21649444 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003).
xiv Fischer v. Deitsch, 168 A.D.2d 599, 563 N.Y.S.2d 836 (2nd Dep’t 1990).
xv Margolies v. Encounter, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 475, 398 N.Y.S.2d 877 (1977).
xvi Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 665 (2nd Dep’t 2003).
xvii 7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu, 220 A.D.2d 215, 631 N.Y.S.2d 835 (1st Dep’t 1995).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.