Plaintiff, Brian Wolfowitz, moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. and Pershing LLC. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to release to plaintiff, to pay for his cancer treatments, $5 million from an HSBC brokerage account—shared by plaintiff and his now-deceased spouse. Defendants have refused to release the funds plaintiff until they receive an IRS transfer certificate showing that the deceased's estate taxes were collected. Defendants argue they will be exposed to tax liability if they release the funds before getting the certificate. (NYSCEF No. 26 at 2.) This court previously denied the TRO that plaintiff brought with his motion, which sought identical relief. (NYSCEF No. 22 at [*2]2.) This court now denies the motion.

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff argues that he has a right to receive the funds accrued in that account under his customer agreement with HSBC. (NYSCEF No. 5 at ¶ 8, citing NYSCEF No. 7 at ¶ 20.) But that agreement also provides that defendants need not "effect any transaction" they "believe would violate any federal or state law, rule or regulation." (NYSCEF No. 7 at ¶ 37.) Defendants thus persuasively argue that, under this provision, they have the discretion to withhold the funds in the account.

Indeed, plaintiff does not seriously dispute that defendant has the discretion to withhold all account funds until defendant obtains an IRS transfer certificate. Instead, he contends that notwithstanding this policy, defendant should release the account funds to him, because plaintiff believes that some of the funds in the account are not subject to taxation. (NYSCEF No. 5 at 3-4.) But plaintiff does not show that defendant is obligated to adhere to plaintiff's determinations on the taxability of the sums in the account. Plaintiff has therefore not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.

That plaintiff is unlikely to be successful on the merits of his claims is underscored by a mandatory-arbitration clause in plaintiff's agreement with HSBC. (NYSCEF No. 7 at ¶¶ 24-25.) Plaintiff has not shown that the arbitration clause is invalid or that this dispute is not arbitrable.^[FN1] The court therefore concludes that plaintiff is unlikely to be successful in this action.

Nor has plaintiff shown that he will be irreparably harmed absent the requested injunctive relief. Plaintiff's alleged injury is that he does not have access to the account money to pay for his cancer treatments. Plaintiff alleges that he has almost exhausted his personal cash savings and has illiquid assets in South Africa. (NYSCEF No. 2 at 6.) But plaintiff does not say how much money he has left, whether he used his personal funds to pay for treatment until now, or whether he lacks access to any other sources of financing. (Cf. Egan v New York Care Plus Ins. Co., 266 AD2d 600, 601 [3d Dept 1999] [finding plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm when he showed inability to personally pay for treatment].) Additionally, plaintiff concedes that insurance will cover some of the costs, even if not all of it. Plaintiff has thus not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction.^[FN2]

Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. The court does not consider whether plaintiff has shown that the balance of equities weighs in his favor.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this court for a telephonic preliminary conference on June 30, 2025.