On November 12, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Speyside Holdings, LLC v. Nebari Natural Resources Credit Fund I, LP, 2025 NY Slip Op. 06208, holding that an investor was not entitled to an injunction staying a foreclosure, explaining:
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the UCC article 9 foreclosure sale. To establish the right to a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) that the equities balance 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. The decision to grant or deny provisional relief is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court.
Here, the plaintiffs’ interest in the mortgaged Suffolk County property is commercial, involving only the potential loss of their investment. Thus, since that loss could be compensated by money damages, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would sustain irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs also did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, nor did they establish a balancing of the equities in their favor.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).