1. * New York CPLR § 3018(b) and Other Standard Defenses

2. Abuse of Process

3. Account Stated

4. Accountant Malpractice

5. Accounting

6. Assault

7. Battery

8. Breach Anticipatory

9. Breach of Contract – Implied In Fact

10. Breach of Contract – Implied In Law

11. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding And Abetting

12. Breach of Joint Venture Agreement

13. Breach of Promissory Note

14. Breach: 01. Breach of Contract

15. Breach: 02. Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract

16. Breach: 03. Breach Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing

17. Breach: 04. Breach of Express Warranty

18. Breach: 05. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

19. Breach: 06. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

20. Breach: 07. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

21. Civil Conspiracy

22. Contracting With Minors/Infants

23. Contribution

24. Conversion

25. Copyright Infringement

26. Custodial Interference

27. Declaratory Judgment

28. Defamation By Implication

29. Defamation Libel

30. Defamation Per Se

31. Defamation Product Disparagement

32. Defamation Slander

33. Dog Bite Liability

34. Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction

35. Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction

36. Estoppel, Equitable

37. Estoppel, Promissory

38. False Advertisement

39. False Imprisonment

40. Fraud

41. Fraud – Constructive

42. Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement

43. Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation

44. Fraud, Aiding And Abetting

45. Fraudulent Concealment By Fiduciary

46. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

47. Goods Sold And Delivered

48. Indemnification

49. Injurious Falsehood

50. Insurance – Bad Faith

51. Intentional Or Malicious Harm To Another Person (Prima Facie Tort)

52. Invasion of Privacy – Improper Use Name, Picture or Likeness

53. Inverse Condemnation

54. Labor Law 240

55. Labor Law 241

56. Legal Malpractice

57. Loss of Consortium

58. Loss of Sepulcher

59. Malicious Prosecution

60. Money Lent

61. Negligence

62. Negligence – Fall Down

63. Negligence – Retention

64. Negligence – Spoliation

65. Negligence: Stillbirth

66. Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle

67. Negligent Security

68. Negligent Supervision

69. Negotiable Instrument

70. New York State Disclaimer Statute

71. New York State Prompt Pay Act

72. Parental Liability

73. Prima Facie Tort

74. Private Nuisance

75. Public Nuisance

76. Quantum Meruit

77. Rescission

78. Right of Sepulcher

79. Slander of Title

80. Specific Performance

81. Strict Liability Design Defect

82. Strict Liability Failure to Warn

83. Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect

84. Subrogation, Equitable

85. Tortious Interference: 1. With Advantageous Business Relationship

86. Tortious Interference: 2. With a Contractual Right

87. Trespass

88. Trust, Constructive

89. Trust, Resulting

90. Unfair Competition

91. Unfair Competition – Copyright Infringement

92. Unfair Competition – Trade Dress Infringement

93. Unjust Enrichment

94. Usury

95. Wrongful Birth

96. Wrongful Death

Preliminary Injunction

1Elements and Case Citations


State Standard: “A preliminary injunction may be granted under CPLR article 63 when the party seeking such relief demonstrates:

  1. a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits;
  2. the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld; and
  3. a balance of equities tipping in the moving party’s favor.”

See Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 (1988). Federal Standard: Federal Injunctions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. “To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, ‘[t]he moving party must show

  1. irreparable harm and
  2. either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and
  3. a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking the injunctive relief.’ . . .

"Such relief, however, is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." A plaintiff’s burden to obtain a preliminary injunction is the same as that required for summary judgment. E.g., Do No Harm v. Pfizer, Inc., 96 F4th 106, 114 (2nd Cir. 2024). See Johnson v. Burge, 506 Fed. Appx. 10, 11 (2d Cir. 2012).


NEW YORK STATE COURTS

Court of Appeals of New York: Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 (1988)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department: Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Landmark Unlimited, Inc., 214 A.D.3d 472, 472, (1st Dep’t 2023); Barbes Restaurant, Inc. v. ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 430, 431 (1st Dep’t. 2016)Gliklad v. Cherney, 97 A.D.3d 401, 402 (1st Dep’t 2012).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2d Department: Walsh v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2023 WL 3986433, *1 (2d Dep’t June 14, 2023); Benaim v. S2 Corona, LLC, 214 A.D.3d 760, 761 (2d Dep’t 2023); 203-205 N8 MB, LLC v. 203-205 N 8th St., LLC, 212 A.D.3d 694, 913 (2d Dep’t 2023), Boyd v. Assanah, 210 A.D.3d 855, 856 (2d Dep’t 2022); Sarker v. Das, 203 A.D.3d 973, 164 N.Y.S.3d 213, 214 (2d Dep’t 2022).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3d Department: Sardino v. Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434,  145 N.Y.S.3d 636, 638 (3d Dept. 2021); Biles v. Whisher, 160 A.D.3d 1159, 1160 (3d Dep’t 2018)STS Steel, Inc. v. Maxon Alco Holdings, LLC, 123 A.D. 3d 1260, 1261 (3d Dep’t 2014).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Department: Matter of P. & E. T. Foundation v. Doyle, --- N.Y.S.3d ----2022 WL 1196563, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 02730 (4th Dep't 2022); AJMRT, LLC v. Kern, 61 N.Y.S.3d 795, 796 (4th Dep’t 2017)Felix v. Brand Serv. Group LLC, 101 A.D.3d 1724, 1725 (4th Dep’t 2012).

NEW YORK FEDERAL COURTS

United States Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit: 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. 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: 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: 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: 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).


2Defenses to Claim for Preliminary Injunction

(1) CPLR § 3018(b) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2) Statute of Limitations: N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(1) (six years); see Roslyn Union Free School Dist. v. Barkan, 16 N.Y.3d 643, 650-51 (2011).

(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).

(4) A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted as a routine matter.” JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); see also John G. Ullman & Assocs., Inc. v. BCK Partners, Inc., 30 N.Y.S.3d 785, 786 (4th Dep’t 2016); Allah v. Piccolo, No. 16-CV-177-FPG, 2018 WL 2381886, at *2 (W.D. N.Y. May 25, 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).

(13) Fait Accompli: “An injunction will not issue to prohibit a fait accompli.” See Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 81 A.D.2d 403, 408 (3d Dep’t 1981); Kazantzis v. Cascade Funding RM1 Acquisitions Grantor Tr., 191 N.Y.S.3d 8, 10 (1st Dep’t 2023); Doe v. Roe, 551 N.Y.S.2d 75, 75 (3d Dep’t 1990).