Opinion
02-25-2015
AMERICAN COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. Paroly FRANCOIS, et al., respondents.
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondents.
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff validly disclaimed coverage to its insured, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated December 14, 2012, as denied those branches of its motion which were for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff sought to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin all no-fault actions arising from a car accident in which its insured allegedly was a driver. The plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its cause of action (see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 A.D.3d 612, 862 N.Y.S.2d 551 ; Matter of Related Props., Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 A.D.3d 587, 590, 802 N.Y.S.2d 221 ; Blueberries Gourmet v. Aris Realty Corp., 255 A.D.2d 348, 349–350, 680 N.Y.S.2d 557 ), failed to demonstrate that it would suffer any imminent and nonspeculative harm in the absence of the requested injunctive relief (see County of Suffolk v. Givens, 106 A.D.3d 943, 967 N.Y.S.2d 387 ; Golden v. Steam Heat, 216 A.D.2d 440, 442, 628 N.Y.S.2d 375 ), and failed to demonstrate that any injuries it would suffer would not be compensable by money damages (see Rowland v. Dushin, 82 A.D.3d 738, 917 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; EdCia Corp. v. McCormack, 44 A.D.3d 991, 994, 845 N.Y.S.2d 104 ; Matter of Gandolfo v. White, 224 A.D.2d 526, 528, 638 N.Y.S.2d 160 ). The plaintiff also failed to establish that the equities balance in its favor (see McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d 165, 174, 498 N.Y.S.2d 146 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
SKELOS, J.P., HALL, SGROI and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.