COULDN’T IDENTIFY SOURCE NOR SHOW UNREASONABLENESS OF NOISE AND VIBRATIONS
M.B., a cooperative shareholder, sued his apartment complex, alleging that he had been subjected to “persistent vibrations and humming noises in his apartment since February 2021.”
After the Queens County Supreme Court granted injunctive relief in his favor and directed the cooperative to “identify the source of the alleged vibrations and noise and to permanently abate them,” an appeal ensued.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that injunctive relief is a “drastic remedy,” which shouldn’t be granted unless a party has demonstrated a clear entitlement to such relief. And to that end, the movant must show: “(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.”
In this instance, the AD2 thought that M.B. hadn’t met the governing legal standard, in that there were “disputed and unresolved issues with regard to whether there is an unreasonable level of noise and vibration in the plaintiff's apartment and whether the parties can identify the source of the alleged noise and vibration.”
Given that backdrop, because the AD2 thought that a “clear right to relief” hadn’t been demonstrated, M.B.’s request for an injunction was denied.
Bet they thought that was ho-hum.
# # #
DECISION