AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

WILLIAM TATUM et al., Appellants, v. NEWELL FUNDING, LLC, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of the equities favors the movant's position ( see Gluck v Hoary, 55 AD3d 668; Apa Sec., Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d 502, 503). The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 1073; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood of success on the merits ( see Gluck v Hoary, 55 AD3d at 668; Apa Sec., Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d at 503).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TATUM v. NEWELL FUNDING
(Jun 16, 2009)