Opinion
September 18, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Subsequent to obtaining a judicial declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were not entitled to terminate the subject contract (see, Neumann v. Metropolitan Med. Group, 153 A.D.2d 885 [decided herewith]), the plaintiff Dr. Neumann nevertheless attempted to do just that. On December 17, 1987, Dr. Neumann advised physicians employed by Metropolitan Medical Group, P.C. (hereinafter MMG) at Falkirk Hospital that their services were no longer required and that the contract was terminated. The contract was purportedly terminated because of Falkirk Hospital's precarious financial position, allegedly caused by MMG's mismanagement, and because of Dr. Neumann's lack of control over the hospital which was allegedly jeopardizing its recertification by the State. The defendants obtained a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, pending a full determination of the merits.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining their unilateral termination of the contract. It warrants repeating that this was the very relief sought by the plaintiffs in their verified complaint. "It is a well-settled principle of law in this State that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position. (See Matter of Martin v. C.A. Prods. Co., 8 N.Y.2d 226, 231; Houghton v. Thomas, 220 App. Div. 415, 423, affd 248 N.Y. 523.) Invocation of the doctrine of estoppel is required in such circumstances lest a mockery be made of the search for truth." (Karasik v. Bird, 104 A.D.2d 758). Indeed, having charted their own course, the plaintiffs cannot now be heard to complain of the result (cf., Orens v. Secofsky, 60 A.D.2d 866, 867).
In any event, we discern no error in the granting of the defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction as they have sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood of their success on the merits, irreparable injury (see, Board of Higher Educ. v Marcus, 63 Misc.2d 268, 272; see also, Anthony F. Wasilkowski, M.D., P.C. v. Amsterdam Mem. Hosp., 92 A.D.2d 1016, 1017), and a balancing of the equities in their favor (see, Matter of Brenner v. Hart Sys., 114 A.D.2d 363, 366). Accordingly, vacatur of the injunction is not warranted. Lawrence, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.