Harris Beach, PLLC, Uniondale, N.Y. (Keith M. Corbett of counsel), for petitioner/plaintiff-appellant. Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Christopher Kendric of counsel), for respondents/defendants-respondents.
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents/defendants dated May 4, 2012, finding that the subject premises contained a dangerous condition, and, inter alia, prohibiting entry into the subject premises, and action for injunctive relief, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered October 11, 2012, as denied its motion to preliminarily enjoin the respondents/defendants from enforcing the determination during the pendency of the proceeding/action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“Although the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a trial, the remedy is considered a drastic one, which should be used sparingly” (Trump on the Ocean, LLC v. Ash, 81 A.D.3d 713, 715, 916 N.Y.S.2d 177). “To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor” (Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d 791, 791–792, 946 N.Y.S.2d 243; see CPLR 6301; Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191). “The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d at 792, 946 N.Y.S.2d 243; see Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272).
Here, the petitioner/plaintiff, Armandia Realty Corp. (hereinafter Armandia), failed to demonstrate its claim of irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, as the alleged injuries were all economic in nature ( see Matter of Rice, 105 A.D.3d 962, 963, 963 N.Y.S.2d 327). In addition, Armandia failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits ( see Matter of Rice, 105 A.D.3d at 963, 963 N.Y.S.2d 327; Family–Friendly Media, Inc. v. Recorder Tel. Network, 74 A.D.3d 738, 903 N.Y.S.2d 80).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying Armandia's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.