(FILED: “G (ONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2015 08:57 AM NyscEr nd | 0 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: ‘Ata Term of Supreme Court held in and for the County of Onondaga, in the City of Watertown, New York on the 22" day of July, 2015. PRESENT: HONORABLE HUGH A, GILBERT Supreme Court Justice STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA KATHLEEN JOY, on behalf of MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE COMMON COUNCIL; and JOHN COPANAS, on behalf of the CITY OF SYRACUSE CITY CLERK, MEMORANDUM Petitioner(s), DECISION AND ORDER Index No, 2015EF2975 -vs- Rul No. 33-15-2450 CITY OF SYRACUSE, Respondent(s). The Court concurs with Petitioners that the Mayor could not institute disciplinary action to terminate the term of an elected official based upon a computer use policy. However, what is before the Court is a Verified Petition requesting preliminary injunctive relief; there has been no underlying special proceeding or action commenced. 07/3 INDEX NO, 20158F2975 (2015Petitioners acknowledged in open Court that an Article 78 proceeding pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules to challenge the July 1, 2016 disabling of their access to the City computer system is not appropriate. ‘The pending Petition is not sufficient for the granting of relief. The Court will take the liberty of converting it into an action for injunctive relief, so that any preliminary relief would not be final in and of itself. Considering a preliminary injunction as part of such an action, the three basic requirements of likely success. on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balancing of the equities must be satisfied by the Plaintif. Gedney Serv. Sta. vs. Sposato Realty, 161 AD2d 641, 641-642 (1989), However, this request is not within the traditional temporary remedy of maintaining the status quo until the merits are decided in the underlying action. New York Yankees Partnership vs. Sports Channel Associates, 126 AD2d 470, 472 (1987). Consequently, such a requested preliminary mandatory injunetion should not be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances, where the status quo would be disturbed and the Plaintiff would receive the ultimate relief sought pendente lite. Rosa Hair Stylists, Inc. vs. Jaber Food Corp., 218 AD2d 793, 794 (1998). This Court cannot find and determine that the Verified Petition and Affidavit in support of the Order to Show Cause presents or constitutes the requisite extraordinary circumstances.‘The Court is further hamstrung by the status of Petitioners. The Court has not been provided with any documentation of a vote by the Common Council authorizing this Petition or of the right of the City Clerk to do so. THEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the request for the preliminary Order set forth in the July 17, 2015 Order to Show Cause is respectfully denied, Dated: July 28, 2015 at Watertown, New York ENTER UGH A. GILBERT ‘Supreme Court Justice