WHITE BAY ENTERPRISES LTD v. NEWSDAY INC (1999)

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant Newsday, Inc., from terminating certain contracts designating the plaintiffs as newspaper delivery agents, the defendant appeals (1) from stated portions of a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated July 31, 1998, (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 6, 1998, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior decision, and (3) from an order of the same court, dated November 16, 1998, which granted the motion of the plaintiff White Bay Enterprises, Ltd., for a preliminary injunction.

 ORDERED that the appeal from the decision dated July 31, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718);  and it is further,

 ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated November 6, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order made upon renewal and reargument of a decision (see, Stockfield v. Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834, 517 N.Y.S.2d 195);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated November 16, 1998, is reversed, on the law, and the motion of the plaintiff White Bay Enterprises, Ltd., for a preliminary injunction is denied;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant, Newsday, Inc., is awarded one bill of costs.

 This action concerns, inter alia, a contract dispute between the defendant, Newsday, Inc. (hereinafter Newsday), a daily newspaper, and one of its independent home delivery contractees, the plaintiff White Bay Enterprises, Ltd. (hereinafter White Bay).   Newsday terminated its delivery contract with White Bay after White Bay allegedly delivered flyers with the newspapers concerning a dispute over the fee to be paid for home delivery.   At issue on this appeal is whether the Supreme Court properly granted White Bay a preliminary injunction barring Newsday from terminating the contract and requiring Newsday to reinstate White Bay as a delivery agent.   We find that injunctive relief was not properly granted.

In support of its motion, White Bay failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief were denied (see, Winkler v. Kingston Hous. Auth., 238 A.D.2d 711, 656 N.Y.S.2d 421;  Rosa Hair Stylists v. Jaber Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793, 631 N.Y.S.2d 167;  Jurlique, Inc. v. Austral Biolab Pty., Ltd., 187 A.D.2d 637, 590 N.Y.S.2d 235).   Rather, on the record made, the injuries alleged would be compensable by money damages (see, O'Neill v. Poitras, 158 A.D.2d 928, 551 N.Y.S.2d 92;  Kurzban & Son v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 756, 514 N.Y.S.2d 749).   Thus, White Bay did not demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief (see, O'Neill v. Poitras, supra).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.