In the context of a breach of an employment contract, there are circumstances where a plaintiff may seek injunctive relief, which in layperson's terms is for a court order to protecting against that former employee disclosing confidential information, or to prevent that employee from poaching the ranks of its clients or employees.


There are other circumstances in the broader breach of contract arena where one party to the contract may seek injunctive relief in order to prevent the other side from undertaking actions that would harm their interests in a fashion that could never be made whole by money. One example of this would be where the defendant has in its possession the personal property of the plaintiff, such as a computer server, and the information on the server is both confidential and irreplaceable, and the defendant is holding this equipment hostage (believe it or not, I had a case like this in the not-too-distant past).


A word of caution is in order here, however: no injunction will lie if money damages would adequately protect the plaintiff's interests, or make the plaintiff whole, because it is well-established that "economic loss, which is compensable by monetary damages, does not constitute irreparable harm." (Family-Friendly Medica, Inc. v. Recorder Television Network, 74 AD3d at 739-740; EdCia Corp v. McCormick, 44 AD3d 991 [2007]). A Queens County trial court recently expanded upon this rule as follows:


"Absent extraordinary circumstances, a preliminary injunction will not issue where to do so would grant the movant the ultimate relief to which he or she would be entitled in a final judgment (see St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., 308 AD2d 347, 348-349 [2003]). In addition, mandatory preliminary injunctions are not favored and should not be granted absent extraordinary or unique circumstances, or where the final judgment may otherwise fail to afford complete relief, especially if the status quo would be disturbed (see St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., supra; Rosa Hair Stylists v. Jaber Food Corp., 218 AD2d 793 [1995]; Xerox Corp. v. Neises, 31 AD2d 195 [1968]; see also 67 NY Jur 2d, Injunctions §55).]]"