ARENA LIMITED SPV LLC v. International Housing Concepts, Inc., Defendant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne J. Adams, J.), entered June 5, 2024, which granted plaintiffs' motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.  Order, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 2024, which granted plaintiffs' motion (motion sequence no. 5) to hold defendants in contempt for violation of a previously issued temporary restraining order (TRO), unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, the motion denied, and contempt order vacated, including the contempt order on motion sequence no. 3.

Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable injury.  As their complaint indicates, the harm they would suffer from the failure of defendants to “turn over” certain collateral is fully compensable in money damages (see Matter of J.O.M. Corp. v. Department of Health of State of N.Y., 173 A.D.2d 153, 154, 569 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1st Dept. 1991]).  Therefore, the mandatory preliminary injunction should not have been issued.

The court decided plaintiffs' prior motion for contempt, motion sequence no. 3, by incorporating it by reference in the order on motion sequence no. 5. Although defendants did not notice an appeal of the order in motion sequence no. 3, in these circumstances, we deem the appeal from motion sequence no. 5 to be an appeal from both orders.

The order of contempt must be vacated as the TRO, which defendants allegedly violated, did not contain a clear, unequivocal mandate (El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 22, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [2015];  Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 N.Y.2d 233, 240, 519 N.Y.S.2d 539, 513 N.E.2d 706 [1987]).

We note that the court was under the incorrect belief that plaintiffs paid defendants $2.33 million to use as a down payment on the construction of the homes for the development.