Opinion
March 17, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they did not make the required showing of (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in their favor (see, Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517), and relied upon bare conclusory allegations, which were insufficient to support a motion for a preliminary injunction (Kaufman v. International Business Machs. Corp., 97 A.D.2d 925, affd 61 N.Y.2d 930).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' unsupported assertion, there is no public policy reason to prohibit the arbitration of the conduct of a fiduciary (Harris v. Shearson Hayden Stone, 56 N.Y.2d 627), and assuming, arguendo, that there was fraud in the inducement of the underlying agreement between the parties in this case, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the defendants were fraudulently induced to agree to an arbitration clause. Failure to show such fraud leaves the arbitration clause between the parties valid (Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 N.Y.2d 190). We find the plaintiffs' other arguments unpersuasive. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.