The damages sustained by reason of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be ascertained upon motion on such notice to all interested persons as the court shall direct. Where the defendant enjoined was an officer of a corporation or joint-stock association or a representative of another person, and the amount of the undertaking exceeds the damages sustained by the defendant by reason of the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, the damages sustained by such corporation, association or person represented, to the amount of such excess, may also be ascertained. The amount of damages so ascertained is conclusive upon all persons who were served with notice of the motion and such amount may be recovered by the person entitled thereto in a separate action.
§ 6315.Ascertaining damages sustained by reason of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Article 63. Injunction · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 6315 lets anyone harmed by a wrongfully issued preliminary injunction or TRO ask the court to fix the damages by motion, extends that process to a represented corporation or person when the undertaking exceeds the defendant's own losses, and makes the resulting damages figure binding and separately collectible.
Full Text of CPLR 6315
Plain-English Summary
Once an injunction turns out to have been wrongly granted, someone has to work out what it cost. CPLR 6315 provides an expedited route: the damages caused by a preliminary injunction or TRO may be ascertained on motion, with notice to all interested persons as the court directs, rather than requiring a separate lawsuit just to calculate the loss.
The section reaches beyond the named defendant in one situation. Where the enjoined defendant was an officer of a corporation or joint-stock association, or was acting as someone else's representative, and the undertaking's amount exceeds what the defendant personally lost, the additional damages suffered by that corporation, association, or represented person, up to the amount of the excess, may also be ascertained on the same motion.
Whatever amount the court fixes is conclusive on everyone who was served with notice of the motion, and the person entitled to it can recover that amount in a separate action, using the motion's determination rather than relitigating the damages from scratch.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does a defendant recover damages caused by a wrongful preliminary injunction?
CPLR 6315 lets the defendant ascertain those damages by motion, with notice to all interested persons, instead of bringing a new lawsuit to establish the loss.
Is the damages motion under CPLR 6315 the only way to recover on an injunction undertaking?
It is an optional, faster route to fixing the amount; the statute makes that determination conclusive and then lets the person entitled to it sue separately to collect.
Can a corporation recover damages beyond what its officer suffered personally?
Yes, where the enjoined defendant was a corporate officer or someone's representative and the undertaking exceeds the defendant's own damages, CPLR 6315 lets the corporation or represented person ascertain its additional damages up to that excess.
Is a damages determination under CPLR 6315 binding on everyone involved?
It is conclusive on all persons who were served with notice of the motion.
How does a party collect the damages once they are ascertained?
The person entitled to the damages may recover the ascertained amount in a separate action against the plaintiff or the undertaking's surety.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section replaces CPA §§ 894, 895 and 896. Those sections provided an expeditious method for ascertaining the damages caused by an injunction, upon motion in the same action in which the injunction was granted; that method was optional, however, and it was not a prerequisite to an action on the undertaking that the damages first be ascertained under those provisions. See 10 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 782–83 (1954). CPA § 895, added by the authors of the Throop Code (see NY Code Civ Proc § 624, note (Throop ed (1880)), set up a class of persons in addition to the defendant who might have recovered damages caused to them to the extent that a surplus remained on the undertaking after deducting the defendant’s damages. See Benguiat v Gotham Nat’l Bank of New York, 261 App Div 199, 24 NYS2d 836 (2d Dept 1941).
Though the language of the three sections has been simplified, the only change of substance made is to require notice to all “interested persons.” This phrase is intended to include the surety as well as the persons specified in CPA § 895. The latter section corresponds to the second sentence of this section. Under the former sections, notice to the surety was not required, but he might have nevertheless been bound by the determination. See 10 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 785, 787 (1954). Under this section the order is binding upon “all persons who had notice of the motion”; under CPA § 894 it bound “all the persons who have executed the undertaking.” The qualification “unless it is reversed on appeal” is omitted as unnecessary. The phrase in CPA § 894 which specified the various methods of trial is omitted since trial of an issue of fact raised on a motion is covered by § 2218. The last sentence of this section has been clarified to indicate that the persons intended are those who received notice by being served with a notice of motion, and not persons who might have received notice in another way.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: damages wrongful injunction New Yorkascertaining injunction damages CPLRundertaking damages motion New York