Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendant United Rockland Stairs, Inc., for a preliminary injunction ( see CPLR 6301, 6312 [c]; Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748; Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486). While it is true the plaintiff's showed the existence of at least a factual question as to the true ownership of the disputed parcel, that was not, under the circumstances of this case, a sufficient reason to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby preserving the status quo ( see Kelley v Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 596; Stockley v Gorelik, 24 AD3d 535; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604).
The plaintiff's' remaining contentions are without merit.