Nathan Sakeni, etc., respondent, v. Kathrin Sakni, etc., et al., appellants, et al., nominal defendant. (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nathan Sakeni, etc., respondent, v. Kathrin Sakni, etc., et al., appellants, et al., nominal defendant.

2022–09312 (Index No. 607187 /22)

Decided: August 19, 2026

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. LILLIAN WAN LAURENCE L. LOVE ELENA GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael J. Antongiovanni of counsel), for appellants. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Daniel E. Shapiro and Elizabeth S. Sy of counsel), for respondent. The plaintiff alleges that in or about 1996, he and his brother (hereinafter the decedent) created the nominal defendant, Rockville Corp. (hereinafter Rockville), in order to purchase certain real property from which the plaintiff would operate a business. Pursuant to the alleged oral agreement, the plaintiff held an 80% interest in Rockville and was responsible for the day-to-day operations and finances, among other things, and the decedent held a 20% interest in Rockville and was responsible for procuring financing and forming the corporation, the sole purpose of which was to hold title to the property. The plaintiff further alleges that following the decedent's death, the decedent's interest in Rockville became an asset of his estate, for which the decedent's wife, the defendant Kathrin Sakni, was appointed executor, and that the decedent's interest in Rockville either was distributed to Sakni or was being held by a trust, for which the defendants, Sakni, Makan Delrahim, and Baharak Amirian, are or were co-trustees. The plaintiff further alleges that, following failed negotiations for the plaintiff to purchase the decedent's 20% interest in Rockville, the defendants engaged a broker to sell the property without the plaintiff's involvement. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants and against Rockville as a nominal defendant, inter alia, for injunctive relief and a declaration of his ownership interest in Rockville.

Argued—January 30, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for injunctive and declaratory relief, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), entered October 3, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied that branch of the cross-motion of the defendants and the nominal defendant which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from marketing or attempting to sell the property owned by Rockville without his express written consent. The defendants and the nominal defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. In an order entered October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross-motion. The defendants appeal.

“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 AD3d 588, 590–591; see Doering v. Oelsner, 243 AD3d 547, 547). “The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (XXXX, L.P. v. 363 Prospect Place, LLC, 153 AD3d at 591; see Kosek v. Engel, 241 AD3d 1311, 1312). “The mere existence of an issue of fact will not itself be grounds for the denial of the motion” (Kosek v. Engel, 241 AD3d at 1312 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see XXXX, L.P. v. 363 Prospect Place, LLC, 153 AD3d at 591).

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and that a balance of the equities weighed in his favor (see Deutsch v. Grunwald, 165 AD3d 1035, 1037; Perpignan v. Persaud, 91 AD3d 622, 623; Winchester Global Trust Co. Ltd. v Donovan, 58 AD3d 833, 834; Kelley v. Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 596). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the documentary evidence submitted on their cross-motion failed to utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law so as to warrant dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) (see generally Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WAN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network