Melrose Credit Union v. Itskovich

208 A.D.3d 472

172 N.Y.S.3d 705

MELROSE CREDIT UNION, respondent,

v.Ruvin ITSKOVICH, et al., appellants.

2019–12607

Index No. 705106/18

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

Submitted—April 26, 2022

August 3, 2022

Fox Rothschild LLP, New York, NY (Brett A. Berman of counsel), for appellants.

Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City, NY (Victoria A. Gionesi of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover on promissory notes, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leonard Livote, J.), entered October 8, 2019. The order denied the defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On December 18, 2014, the defendant Ruvin Itskovich entered into seven loan agreements on behalf of the corporate defendants. Itskovich executed seven promissory balloon notes in favor of the plaintiff—six of them in the sum of $531,300 and one in the sum of $781,500, which were secured by taxi medallions owned by the corporate defendants. The notes were payable in full by December 18, 2017. In November 2017, the parties agreed to extend the maturity date of the notes by three months, with the intent of entering into an agreement to refinance the notes. However, no such agreement was reached, and in April 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the defendants had defaulted under the terms of the notes.

On June 19, 2019, the plaintiff allegedly attempted to seize the seven taxi medallions. By order to show cause filed June 24, 2019, the defendants moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the plaintiff from seizing the medallions. In an order entered October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the defendants had failed to establish the probability of success on the merits. The defendants appeal.

On a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant has the burden of demonstrating that (1) the movant will likely succeed on the merits of the action, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and (3) the balance of equities is in favor of the movant (see CPLR 6301 ; Recine v. Recine, 201 A.D.3d 827, 161 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; Berman v. TRG Waterfront Lender, LLC, 181 A.D.3d 783, 785, 122 N.Y.S.3d 317 ).

In order to establish its right to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must submit the note, along with evidence of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms (see Melrose Credit Union v. Matatov, 187 A.D.3d 1009, 1011–1013, 134 N.Y.S.3d 53 ; Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v. Luzzi, 177 A.D.3d 944, 945, 113 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v. Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 A.D.3d 789, 789–790, 997 N.Y.S.2d 147 ).

Here, the plaintiff attached to its complaint copies...