In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied Heung Man Lau's request for a preliminary injunction against the South Brooklyn Railway Company. This decision, made on June 3, 2026, affects Lau's ability to operate a parking and warehousing business at a Brooklyn location, following the company's termination of their agreement. The ruling highlights the complexities of commercial agreements and tenant rights.
The case, Heung Man Lau v. South Brooklyn Ry. Co., was filed under docket number 2024-10998. Lau, the appellant, sought relief after the railway company, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, terminated their license agreement, which allowed Lau to use a warehouse and parking lot located at 5th Avenue and 38th Street in Brooklyn.
The dispute began when Lau, who rents parking spaces to teachers and staff at a nearby school, claimed that the termination of the agreement constituted commercial tenant harassment. The agreement, executed in 1998, allowed Lau to use the premises for warehousing and parking but explicitly stated that it did not create a landlord-tenant relationship. After the agreement expired in 2009, Lau extended it for another ten years and eventually entered a month-to-month holdover agreement.
In April 2022, the South Brooklyn Railway Company issued a 30-day notice of termination to Lau. Following this, Lau alleged that the company began locking her out of parts of the lot. This prompted her to file a lawsuit seeking both a declaration that she had a valid month-to-month lease and a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the termination notice.
The Supreme Court of Kings County, presided over by Justice Peter P. Sweeney, denied Lau's motion for a preliminary injunction on October 7, 2024. Lau appealed this decision, which led to the recent ruling by the Appellate Division.
The court ruled that Lau did not meet the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction. According to the opinion, "the movant has the burden of demonstrating that (1) the movant will likely succeed on the merits of the action, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and (3) the balance of equities is in favor of the movant." The court emphasized that economic loss, which could be compensated through money damages, does not constitute irreparable harm.
The judges involved in the ruling included Lara J. Genovesi, Lillian Wan, Janice A. Taylor, and Donna-Marie E. Golia. They concurred that the Supreme Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in denying Lau's request for a preliminary injunction and a Yellowstone injunction, which is a specific type of injunction used in commercial lease disputes.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both Lau and other commercial tenants facing similar situations. It reinforces the idea that without a formal landlord-tenant relationship, tenants may have limited rights in disputes over property use. The ruling also clarifies that potential economic losses do not equate to irreparable harm in the eyes of the court.
This decision may set a precedent for future cases involving commercial agreements and tenant rights, particularly in New York. It underscores the importance of understanding the terms of agreements and the legal distinctions between licenses and leases.
Looking ahead, Lau may have the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence similar disputes in the future, particularly for businesses operating under similar agreements.