Innis Deli, Inc. v Nesheiwat

Supreme Court, Dutchess County

Decided on June 3, 2026

Index No. 51497/26

Maria G. Rosa, J.

The plaintiff seeks an order staying the eviction proceedings in the Town of Poughkeepsie Court. The plaintiff is the tenant. The defendant is the landlord at a commercial property located at 174 Innis Avenue, Poughkeepsie, New York. This motion was brought by Order to Show Cause signed May 21, 2026. The return date was June 1, 2026. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant's favor. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo and prevent the dissipation of property that could render a judgment ineffectual. As a general rule, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. . . . (CPLR 6301; Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc. v Werzberger, 189 AD3d 1165, 1166—1167 [2d Dept. 2020] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). A preliminary injunction is for equitable relief that cannot be remedied with monetary damages. Buckley v McAteer, 210 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept. 2021]; Norton v Dubrey, 116 AD3d 1215 [3d Dept. 2014]. At bar, Plaintiff seeks money damages due to constructive eviction, a defense in the Town Court case.

In this action, Plaintiff claims that after the parties entered into a lease, Defendant approached Plaintiff about expanding the building. Plaintiff agreed to rent the additional space once the building was expanded. However, the building permit allegedly did not include a [*2]request for the continuation of Plaintiff's deli business. Therefore, the Town issued violation notices to Plaintiff which effectively forced Plaintiff to terminate the deli business. Plaintiff, however, does not deny that it continued occupancy of the premises. In fact, as of the complaint filed March 18, 2026, Plaintiff stated "Plaintiff entered into and continues in possession of the premises, performing all of the terms of the Lease on its part to be performed." (NYSCEF Doc. 1 paragraph 6.) However, prior to commencement of this action, on January 9, 2026, Defendant commenced a summary eviction proceeding in the Town of Poughkeepsie Court based on Plaintiff's failure to pay rent. That proceeding is set for hearing on June 11, 2026. Plaintiff seeks an order from this court staying those proceedings. As Defendant argues, and as Plaintiff admits, where the remedies sought in a complaint can be remedied exclusively with money damages, an injunction is not appropriate. (Buckley, supra; Norton, supra.) Although Plaintiff claims that the loss of the deli business is an unquantifiable event resulting in irreparable harm, this proposition is not relevant to the determination of whether to grant a stay of the eviction proceedings. Since Plaintiff claims it was already evicted, this Court would not be preserving Plaintiff's business by granting the injunction. Further, since the defense of constructive eviction is available to Plaintiff in the eviction proceedings, it should be addressed there. (Amoo v Eastlake Realty Co., 133 AD2d 657 [2d Dept. 1987]; All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc. v Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, Inc., 22 AD3d 512 [2d Dept. 2005]). Even if Plaintiff were to succeed on the merits of this action in which Plaintiff claims damages as a result of constructive eviction, the only result would be money damages.

Based on the foregoing, it would be inappropriate for this court to order an injunction. The Town eviction case should proceed.

Dated: June 3, 2026

Poughkeepsie, New York

ENTER:

MARIA G. ROSA, J.S.C.