Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
LGC USA HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. TALY DIAMONDS, LLC, Defendant, Taly Diamonds (N.Y.) Ltd., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 15, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction on the ground that the alleged harm is compensable by money damages and therefore is not irreparable (see Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 [1998] ). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the provision in the operating agreement entitling a party to specific performance in the event of the other's breach does not render the alleged harm irreparable. Unlike the operating agreements in the cases relied on by plaintiff, the operating agreement at issue here does not provide that any loss resulting from a breach is irreplaceable or that the damage is irreparable (see Matter of Reed Found. v. Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, LLC, 108 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2013] [provision expressly stated that a breach or threatened breach would constitute irreparable harm]; Seitzman v. Hudson Riv. Assoc., 126 A.D.2d 211 [1st Dept 1987] [provision authorizing non-breaching purchaser to obtain specific performance stated that apartment and its possession cannot be duplicated] ). Plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof showing a clear right to the relief sought (see 1234 Broadway LLC v. West Side SRO Law Project, Goddard Riverside Community Ctr., 86 AD3d 18, 23 [1st Dept 2011] ), in light of the largely speculative assertions in the affidavit of its president and the fact that they were sharply contradicted by defendants' affidavits.
Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. As the motion court correctly reasoned, the operating agreement does not give the liquidator the power to conduct the daily operations of the business, but rather, provides for limited duties, including giving notice of the dissolution and determining how to distribute assets.
Additionally, the injunction sought seeks to change the status quo, plaintiff having requested verbatim the ultimate relief sought in the complaint pendente lite (see St. Paul Fire and Mar. Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., Inc., 308 A.D.2d 347, 349 [1st Dept 2003] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 16, 2014
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)