Did Court Properly Grant Preliminary Injunction For Alleged Nuisance?
In 2015, Michael Bilgrei entered into a proprietary lease for a unit in a cooperative apartment complex owned and operated by North Shore Towers Apts. He alleged that he had heard persistent vibrations and humming noises in his apartment since February 2021. In November 2021, Bilgrei commenced an action for an injunction directing NST to identify the source of the alleged vibrations and noise and to permanently abate them.
Bilgrie moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining NST “from permitting the nuisance caused by excessive noise and vibration” in his apartment and directing NST “to undertake such measures as are necessary to completely and permanently abate the nuisance.” NST opposed the motion. Supreme Court granted the motion, enjoined NST from permitting the vibrations and noise to continue, and directed NST to undertake measures to permanently abate the vibrations and noise. NST appealed.
The appellate court granted NST’s motion to stay enforcement of the order pending a hearing and determination of the appeal.
Preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy which will not be granted unless a clear right to that relief is established under the law and the undisputed facts upon the moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant. To establish the right to a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the grant of the injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the plaintiff’s favor. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a preliminary injunction will not issue where to do so would grant the movant the ultimate relief to which he or she would be entitled in a final judgment. The appeals court found that Bilgrei had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, as the record revealed disputed and unresolved issues with regard to whether there was an unreasonable level of noise and vibration in his apartment and whether the parties could identify the source of the alleged noise and vibration.
Belgrei also failed to show that irreparable injury would result in the absence of a preliminary injunction or that the balance of the equities resolved in his favor. Because Belgrei failed to show a clear right to relief, Supreme Court should have denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. Moreover, by granting the motion, the court granted Belgrei a portion of the ultimate relief that he sought in the complaint, effectively altering the status quo.