AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

RANJIT S. SACHDEV et al., Appellants, v. METRO RESOURCES INC., et al., Respondents.

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 N.Y.2d 748, 750). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must 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 its favor ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Doe v. Axelrod, supra, at 750). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SACHDEV v. METRO RESOURCES INC
(Oct 19, 1998)