Cushing v. Sanford Equities Corp.

204 N.Y.S.3d 524

223 A.D.3d 870

Robert CUSHING, et al., appellants,

v.SANFORD EQUITIES CORP., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 13, 2023

January 31, 2024

Robert Cushing and Noan-Huey Wu, Flushing, NY, appellants pro se.

Bill Zou and Associates PLLC, Flushing, NY, for respondents.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leonard Livote, J.), entered February 24, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction staying a holdover proceeding commenced on behalf of the defendant Sanford Equities Corp. in the Civil Court, Queens County, under Index No. LT–058610–18, pending determination of this action and pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 624 to inspect the books and records of that defendant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Sanford Equities Corp. (hereinafter the cooperative) is a residential cooperative, and the defendant Arthur Kwok is a member of its board. The plaintiffs are shareholders in the cooperative. In July 2021, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction staying a holdover proceeding commenced on behalf of the cooperative in the Civil Court, Queens County, under Index No. LT–058610–18 and pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 624 to inspect the cooperative’s books and records. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs appeal.

[1–3] "To establish the right to a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) that the equities balance in the movant’s favor" (Benaim v. S2 Corona, LLC, 214 A.D.3d 760, 761, 186 N.Y.S.3d 236; see CPLR 6301; Grassfield v. JUPT, Inc., 208 A.D.3d 1219, 1220, 174 N.Y.S.3d 458). As a general rule, "[t]he decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" (Rhodes v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 207 A.D.3d 767, 768, 172 N.Y.S.3d 702 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 203–205 N8 MB, LLC v. 203–205 N 8th St., LLC, 212 A.D.3d 694, 179 N.Y.S.3d 913). "Absent unusual or compelling circumstances, appellate courts are reluctant to disturb that determination" (Boyd v. Assanah, 210 A.D.3d 855, 856, 179 N.Y.S.3d 77 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cong. Machon Chana v. Machon Chana Women’s Inst., Inc., 162 A.D.3d 635, 638, 80 N.Y.S.3d 61).

[4] Here, since the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a preliminary injunction staying the holdover proceeding (see Sarker v. Das, 203 A.D.3d 973, 974, 164 N.Y.S.3d 213; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Raia Med. Health, P.C., 140 A.D.3d 1029,...