AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
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
Advocates
Judges

DANA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Respondents, v. CROWN IMPORTS, LLC, et al., Appellants.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and a balance of the equities in its favor ( see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745). Here, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient proof to show that they would suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminary injunction ( see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745; Golden v Steam Heat, 216 AD2d 440). Where, as here, a litigant can fully be recompensed by a monetary award, a preliminary injunction will not issue ( see Price Paper Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748, 750). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DANA DISTRIB. v. CROWN IMPORTS
(Feb 19, 2008)