United States Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit: City of New York v. Henriquez, 98 F.4 th 402, 410 (2 nd Cir. 2024); Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, 96 F4th 351, 456 (2 nd Cir. March 18, 2024); Resource Group Int’l. Lmt. v. Chishti, 2024 WL 220223, *5 (2nd Cir. Jan. 22, 2024); Mendez v. Banks, 65 F.4th 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2023); Ogbolu v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y.C., 2023 WL 2579044, *3 (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2023).
Eastern District: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Gerling, --- F.Supp.3d ----2024 WL 779276, *3 (E.D.N.Y. February 26, 2024); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Clark, 2024 WL 2387788, * 2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2024); American Transit Ins. Co. v. Pierre, 2024 WL 2214525, *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2024); Williams v. City of New York, 2024 WL 1908657, *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024); Hayden Al Technologies, Inc. v. Safe Fleet Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1018589L *2 (E.D.N.Y. February 23, 2024).
Northern District: Mintz v. Chiumento, --- F.Supp.3d ----2024 WL 1361047, *3 (N.D.N.Y. 2024); Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, 2024 WL 340775, *5 (N.D.N.Y Jan. 30, 2024); Harley Marine NY, Inc. v. Moore, 2023 WL 3620720, *6 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2023); Byng v. Kelly, 2023 WL 2206547, *8 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023); Dean v. DeBejian, 2022 WL 17842983, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2022); Gazzola v. Hochul, 2022 WL 17485810, *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2022).
Southern District: Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Tech., Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----2024 WL 815845, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2024); Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff, 2024 WL 167333, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 16, 2024) ;LoanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortg., LLC, 2023 WL 3884032, *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2023); Deide v. Day, 2023 WL 3842694, *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2023); Wave Studio, LLC v. trivago N.V., 2023 WL 3720079, *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2023); Goodman v. Bouzy, 2023 WL 3296203, *17 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2023).
Western District: Shomo v. Eckert, 345 F.R.D. 570, 579 )(W.D.N.Y. March 14, 2024); New York State Firearms Assoc. v. James, 2024 WL 1932050, *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2024); Hayvin Gaming, LLC v. Workinman Interactive, LLC, 2023 WL 3748844, *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 1, 2023); Mohr v. Erie Cnty. Legislature, 2023 WL 2244987, *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023); Donlon v. City of Hornell, 2023 WL 2236490, *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023).
(3) The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the litigation. E.g., Barbes Restaurant, Inc. v. ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 430, 431 (1st Dep’t. 2016); Walsh v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2023 WL 3986433, *2 (2d Dep’t June 14, 2023); Bass v. WV Pres. Partners, LLC, 209 A.D.3d 480, 481 (1st Dep’t 2022); see also New York Auto. Ins. Plan v. New York Sch. Ins. Reciprocal, 241 A.D.2d 313, 315 (1st Dep’t 1997) (a preliminary injunction that substantially changes the status quo must be denied.); Benitez v. King, 298 F.Supp.3d 530, 535 (W.D. N.Y. 2018).
(5) “A preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy that should not be granted unless a clear legal right thereto is shown.” McGuinn v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 489 (1st Dep’t 1995)(emphasis added); R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants v. Fonts, 206 A.D.3d 943, 944 (2d Dep’t 2022); Standard Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Chelsea Gardens Corp., 105 A.D.3d 510, 510 (1st Dep’t 2013).
(6) A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction has the burden of demonstrating that (1) it will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and (2) either (a) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the action, or (b) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor. Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79 (2d Cir. 2010); Melrose Credit Union v. Itskovich, 208 A.D.3d 472, 473 (2d Dep’t 2022); TDA, LLC v. Lacey, 202 A.D.3d 1474, 1475 (4th Dep’t 2022). The plaintiff’s burden is to make “a clear showing that [it] is entitled to such relief.” See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008); see also Council of the City of New York v. Giuliani, 248 A.D.2d 1, 4 (1st Dep’t 1998) (a “movant’s burden of proof on a motion for a preliminary injunction is particularly high.”).
(7) “A mere possibility of irreparable harm is insufficient to justify the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction.” Borey v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Allah v. Piccolo, No. 16-CV-177-FPG, 2018 WL 2381886, at *2 (W.D. N.Y. May 25, 2018).
(8) Clear and Convincing Evidence: “A movant must satisfy each requirement with ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” County of Suffolk v. Givens, 106 A.D.3d 943, 944 (2d Dep’t 2013); Brighton Grassroots, LLC v. Town of Brighton Planning Bd., 174 N.Y.S.3d 644, 645 (4th Dep’t 2022); Uber Techs., Inc. v. Am. Arb. Ass'n, Inc., 204 A.D.3d 506, 508 (1st Dep’t 2022); Zoller v. HSBC Mortgage Corp., 135 A.D. 3d 932, 933 (2d Dep’t 2016).
(9) “[T]he failure to act sooner undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests that there is, in fact, no irreparable injury[.] … [If not] explainable, delay alone may justify denial of a preliminary injunction.” Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Prods., 60 F.3d 964, 968 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Monowise Limited Corp. v. Ozy Media, Inc., No. 17-CV-8028, 2018 WL 2089342, at *1 (S.D. N.Y. May 3, 2018).
(10) A motion for a preliminary injunction is properly denied where “the plaintiff made only conclusory allegations and failed to point to any imminent and non-speculative harm that would befall it in the absence of a preliminary injunction.” Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 74 A.D.3d 738, 739-40 (2d Dep’t 2010) (emphasis added).
(11) Statutory Injunctions: In Federal Court, “[w]here a party seeks a statutory injunction, however, a presumption of irreparable harm often applies, since the party is said to be acting as ‘a statutory guardian charged with safeguarding the public interest.’” City of New York v. Wolfpack Tobacco, No. 13 Civ. 1889 (DLC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129103, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013).
(12) Labor Disputes: A District Court may enjoin a labor strike when the following factors are met: “(1) the collective bargaining agreement contains a mandatory grievance procedure; (2) the agreement contains a no-strike clause; (3) the underlying dispute or disputes involved are subject to the mandatory gievance procedure; and (4) the traditional requirements of equity—irreparable harm and balance of hardships—are satisfied.” Will Poultry, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 264, No. 13-CV-1135, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180072, at *9-10 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2013).