Opinion
16529 Index No. 158146/20 Case No. 2022–02049
10-25-2022
Catherine MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 215 CHRYSTIE LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Lambert & Shackman, PLLC, New York (Thomas C. Lambert of counsel), for appellant. Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Remy J. Stocks of counsel), for respondents.
Lambert & Shackman, PLLC, New York (Thomas C. Lambert of counsel), for appellant.
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Remy J. Stocks of counsel), for respondents.
Webber, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Gonza´lez,Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 13, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's motion to enjoin the condominium's hotel from operating its entertainment spaces at what she alleges are "unreasonable noise levels" was properly denied. The harm to plaintiff in maintaining the status quo while awaiting trial on her claims is compensable by measurable money damages and therefore not irreparable (see Louis Lasky Mem. Med. & Dental Ctr. LLC v. 63 W. 38th LLC, 84 A.D.3d 528, 924 N.Y.S.2d 324 [1st Dept. 2011] ; see also Montgomery v. 215 Chrystie LLC, 201 A.D.3d 503, 156 N.Y.S.3d 855 [1st Dept. 2022], lv dismissed, 38 N.Y.3d 1125, 172 N.Y.S.3d 679, 192 N.E.3d 1158 [2022] ). Nor has plaintiff shown that the equities balance in her favor in that she purchased a unit in a condominium where one of the other units was a hotel, operating directly below her and where she was aware from the offering plan that entertainment spaces would be present in the hotel (cf. 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v. CGM EMP LLC, 86 A.D.3d 403, 404, 928 N.Y.S.2d 861 [1st Dept. 2011] [finding a preliminary injunction should issue in a case where the club at the center of the noise complaints began operations after the plaintiffs were already owner tenants and its rooftop bar violated plans filed with the Department of Buildings]). Plaintiff's arguments concerning the building's machine room are not before this Court, as an injunction was not sought on that basis in the motion below. Moreover, the issue was decided in a prior order, subsequently affirmed by this Court (see Montgomery, 201 A.D.3d at 503, 156 N.Y.S.3d 855 ).