DANA DISTRIBUTORS INC v. CROWN IMPORTS LLC (2008)

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 55-c challenging the termination of a beer distribution agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated May 4, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted, and a balance of the equities in its favor (see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v. Chmiel, 224 A.D.2d 680, 638 N.Y.S.2d 698;  Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745, 488 N.Y.S.2d 204).   Here, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient proof to show that they would suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminary injunction (see Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v. Chmiel, 224 A.D.2d 680, 638 N.Y.S.2d 698;  Family Affair Haircutters v. Detling, 110 A.D.2d 745, 488 N.Y.S.2d 204;  Golden v. Steam Heat, 216 A.D.2d 440, 628 N.Y.S.2d 375).   Where, as here, a litigant can fully be recompensed by a monetary award, a preliminary injunction will not issue (see Price Paper & Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 A.D.2d 748, 750, 582 N.Y.S.2d 746).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.