Fact Issues And Credibility Determinations On Injunction Motions

Almost exactly one year ago, we wrote about the go-to line of New York case law for business divorce litigants hoping to secure injunctions: a substantial and ever growing body of authority holding that involuntary loss or deprivation of equity ownership, management, or control rights in a closely-held business typically qualifies as "irreparable" harm, for which money damages are insufficient and injunctive relief appropriate (see e.g. Yemini v Goldberg, 60 AD3d 935 [2d Dept 2009] ["because control and management . . . were at stake, money damages were not sufficient. Thus, the defendants established the element of irreparable injury"] [citation omitted]).

A far less frequently invoked line of case law originating not from business divorce law, but the law of lottery, holds that an injunction movant may demonstrate "irreparable" harm where a "substantial amount of money may be dissipated or otherwise unavailable for recovery" without an injunction (Ma v Lien, 198