motion, items (2), (3), (5), and (6), necessarily assumed thegranting of the TRO, and, without the TRO, they would be and arenow moot in the context of the presently pleaded causes ofaction, with the possible exception of the list of members andassociated data requested. The court declines to grant suchrelief in a preliminary injunction form as it would amount to agrant via summary judgment the total relief demanded in thecomplaint with respect to the membership list. Jones v. ParkFront Apartments, LLC, 73 A.D.3d 612, 613 (1st Dept. 2010)(“thatmandatory directive granted plaintiff a portion of the ultimaterelief sought and was not necessary to maintain the status quopending trial”). Compare Second on Second Cafe, Inc. v. HingSing Trading, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 255, 265 (1st Dept. 2009).“Importantly it is not for this court to determine finally themerits of an action upon a motion for preliminary injunction;rather, the purpose of the interlocutory relief is to preservethe Status quo until a decision is reached on the merits.” Tuckerv. Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322, 325 (4 Dept. 1976). See Destiny USA
Holdings, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., 69 A.D.3d212, 224 (4th Dept. 2009)(“the court erred in determining theultimate rights of the parties”); Watmet, Inc. v. Robinson, 116A.D.2d 998, 999 (4th Dept. 1986)(not for the court to determinefinally the merits of an action upon a motion for preliminaryinjunction).