IN RE: BRIGHTON GRASSROOTS (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioners and petitioners-plaintiffs (collectively, petitioners) commenced these related proceedings and hybrid CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions to challenge the construction of a retail plaza on Monroe Avenue in the Town of Brighton. In these consolidated appeals, petitioners each appeal from orders, all of which were issued pursuant to a single “Global Decision,” that collectively denied each of the 10 motions made by petitioners seeking preliminary injunctive relief pertaining to the ongoing construction.

It is well settled that “[p]reliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy [that] is not routinely granted” (Delphi Hospitalist Servs. LLC v Patrick, 163 AD3d 1441, 1441 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the party seeking injunctive relief “must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence: (1) ‘a probability of success on the merits;’ (2) ‘danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction;’ and (3) ‘a balance of equities in its favor’ ” (Cangemi v Yeager, 185 AD3d 1397, 1398 [4th Dept 2020]). Here, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions. Petitioners failed to establish irreparable injury or that a balance of equities favored them (see Eastview Mall, LLC v Grace Holmes, Inc., 182 AD3d 1057, 1058 [4th Dept 2020]). We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the orders.

Entered: September 30, 2022

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court