Opinion
2003-01396
Argued June 6, 2003.
July 14, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated December 13, 2002, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a preliminary injunction enjoining it from obstructing the plaintiff's access to and use of a parking lot located on its property.
Kucker Bruh, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nativ Winiarski of counsel), for appellant.
Cobert, Haber Haber, Mineola, N.Y. (David M. Streiner and Eugene F. Haber of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's use of a parking lot located on property owned by the defendant is denied.
A party establishes its entitlement to a preliminary injunction by demonstrating (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in its favor ( see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750; Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517; Mosseri v. Fried, 289 A.D.2d 545; Blueberries Gourmet v. Aris Realty Corp., 255 A.D.2d 348, 349).
The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff sought money damages for breach of a lease and tortious interference with its business opportunities, and, thus, had an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction ( see Price Paper Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 A.D.2d 748 , 750). Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contention is academic, and, in any event, is not properly before this court ( see CPLR 5501[a]; Aguirre v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 692, 694).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.