SHORT FORM ORDER

5 downloads 956 Views 150KB Size Report
1. 1,. 2000, and directing the Receiver to continue collection of same, to pay to. take possession of the GMAC judgments obtained by defendant Murov and Ades,  ...
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARLQ Justice

r__

TRIAL/L@, PART 15 NASSAU COUNTY

YALE M. MUROV, Plaintiff, INDEX No. 000736/O 1 -againstMOTION DATE: March 26,200l Motion Sequence # 001 PAUL R. ADES and MUROV and ADES, a General Partnership, Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Order to Show Cause ...................................... X Affidavit in Opposition.. .................................. X Reply Affidavit ................................................ X This motion, by plaintiff, brought on by order to show cause, for an order: (a)

Enjoining and restraining defendants, Paul R. Ades and Murov and Ades and their agents, servants, attorneys and employees, during the pendency of this action, from transferring or disposing of judgments obtained by the firm prior to March 3 1,200O or the proceeds collected on any such judgments obtained by Murov and Ades as counsel for General Motors Acceptance Corp. (“GMAC”).

(b)

Appointing an interim Receiver to. take possession of the GMAC judgments obtained by defendant Murov and Ades, prior to March 3 1, 2000, and directing the Receiver to continue collection of same, to pay 1

..

MUROV v ADES, et al

Index no. 000736/01

out to GMAC as judgment creditor it ’s share thereof, and to remitthe balance to plaintiff and defendant equally, after deducting the Receiver ’s reasonable costs, fees and expenses thereof. (c)

Granting to the plaintiff such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper,

is determined as hereinafter set forth. In this action involving the dissolution of a law partnership, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and payment of an equal portion of fees earned on judgments obtained on behalf of one particular client, GMAC, which may amount to more than $100,000. “It is well settled that to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate by clear ahd convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of equities favors the movant position (see, Price Paner and Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748; Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 137 AD2d 22).”

’s

(Amana Express International Inc. v Pier-Air International, Ltd., 2 11 AD2d 606,62 1 NYS2d 108, Second Dept., 1995). Applying those principles to the facts at bar, the Court finds that facts crucial to the plaintiffs establishment of a likelihood of success on the merits are sharply disputed. Since this Court is aware that the existence of an issue of fact is “not in itself. . grounds for denial of the motion ” (CPLR 6312 (c)), this Court will consider the other criteria set forth hereinabove. With respect to the criterion of irreparable injury, it is well settled that where there has been no showing that a plaintiff will be irreparably damaged absent an injunction, and “the injury alleged is pecuniary in nature and may be adequately compensated by money ” (New York City Offdamages,. . .[that are not] too difficult or speculative to calculate Track Betting Cornoration v New York Racing: Association, Inc., 250 AD2d 437,673 NYS2d 387, 390-1, 1”’ Dept., 1998; see, also, White Bav Enterprises, Ltd. v Newsday, Tnc., 258 AD2d 520,685 NYS2d 257, 2nd Dept., 1999). Herein, one of the plaintiffs causes 2

MUROV v ADES, et al

Index no. 000736/01

of action seeks an accounting, which is an appropriate vehicle to ascertain such damages, if any. Considering the third criterion, that the movant must demonstrate that a halancing of the equities favors him, in light of the defendant ’s assertions regarding who was the originating partner for the GMAC account, the amount of work required to actually collect the GMAC judgments and other considerations that detract from the plaintiffs alleged right to a share of the fees, this Court fmds that plaintiff has not made the requisite demonstration. Accordingly, the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction is denied. With respect to the plaintiffs request for appointment of a temporary receiver, the Court is mindful of the sensitivity of the attorney-client relationship and the possible effect that such an appointment may have on that relationship. Moreover, the plaintiff has not shown this Court that the cause of action for an accounting that will be expedited would not sufficiently protect his interests herein (see CPLR 6401 et. seq.). Accordingly, plaintiffs request for the appointment of a temporary receiver is also denied. The making of this motion has triggered assignment pursuant to Part 202 of the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Court. The Preliminary Conference mandated by Section 202.12 shall be held in the DCM Part located on the lower level of the courthouse on the lSf day of June 2001 at 9:30 A.M. So Ordered.