Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendants (hereinafter the appellants) for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the plaintiff from performing any construction or renovation work upon the subject premises.
A party seeking the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction must establish a clear right to that relief under the law and the undisputed facts ( see Gagnon Bus Co., Inc. v Vallo Transp., Ltd., 13 AD3d 334). The burden of proof is on the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable injury if the relief is withheld, and a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor ( see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748).
Here, the facts are in such sharp dispute that it cannot be said that the appellants established a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief ( see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612, 613; Matter of Related Props., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 AD3d 587, 590).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.