BLINDS AND CARPET GALLERY INC v. REALTY INC (2011)

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a purported agreement to offer a lease of certain commercial premises, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 9, 2010, as denied their motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from transferring title of the subject premises to a nonparty.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 In order to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of the equities favors the movant's position (see Tatum v. Newell Funding, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 911, 912, 880 N.Y.S.2d 542;  Gluck v. Hoary, 55 A.D.3d 668, 865 N.Y.S.2d 356;  Apa Sec., Inc. v. Apa, 37 A.D.3d 502, 503, 831 N.Y.S.2d 201).   The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 857 N.Y.S.2d 648;  Ruiz v. Meloney, 26 A.D.3d 485, 486, 810 N.Y.S.2d 216).

 Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood of success on the merits (see Tatum v. Newell Funding, LLC, 63 A.D.3d at 912, 880 N.Y.S.2d 542;  Gluck v. Hoary, 55 A.D.3d at 668, 865 N.Y.S.2d 356) or that they would suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction was not granted (see Dixon v. Malouf, 61 A.D.3d 630, 875 N.Y.S.2d 918;  Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 A.D.3d at 1073, 857 N.Y.S.2d 648;  Matos v. City of New York, 21 A.D.3d 936, 937, 801 N.Y.S.2d 610 1659 Ralph Ave. Laundromat Corp. v. Ben David Enters., 307 A.D.2d 288, 289, 762 N.Y.S.2d 288).