DOERING v. OELSNER (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas Rademaker, J.), entered September 27, 2021, and (2) an order of the same court entered December 2, 2021.  The order entered September 27, 2021, after a hearing, denied the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction.  The order entered December 2, 2021, among other things, denied the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the defendants’ counsel.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered December 2, 2021, is dismissed as abandoned;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered September 27, 2021, is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the order entered December 2, 2021, must be dismissed as abandoned, as the plaintiff has withdrawn the arguments in his appellant's brief in support of reversal of that order.

The plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of certain parcels of real property located in the Incorporated Village of Centre Island.  In 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, alleging that the defendants were trespassing on his property.  Thereafter, the plaintiff twice moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from, among other things, accessing his property.  In an order entered September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, denied the motions.  The plaintiff appeals.

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor” (XXXX, L.P. v. 363 Prospect Place, LLC, 153 A.D.3d 588, 590–591, 60 N.Y.S.3d 84).  Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his causes of action (see Brighton Leasing Corp. v. Brighton Realty Corp., 233 A.D.3d 839, 221 N.Y.S.3d 676;  cf.  Merling v. Ash Dev., LLC, 198 A.D.3d 743, 156 N.Y.S.3d 257;  Arcamone–Makinano v. Briton Prop., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 623, 920 N.Y.S.2d 362).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.