Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In order "to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of equities favors the movant's position" ( Apa Sec, Inc. v Apa, 37 AD3d 502, 503 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending determination of the action . . . The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" ( Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1072, 1073 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of success on the merits. In contrast, the defendants met their burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. The evidence demonstrated that the bylaws of the plaintiff Northern Service Group, Inc. (hereinafter NSG), a New York not-for-profit corporation, were amended in 2004 to install the defendant Chevre Liady Nusach Hoary (hereinafter Chevre Liady) as NSG's sole member ( see N-PCL 602 [b]). Consequently, as sole member, Chevre Liady had the authority to remove members of the NSG Board of Directors ( see N-PCL 706 [a]).
Furthermore, the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the defendants would suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminary injunction and that a balance of the equities favors granting their cross motion for a preliminary injunction ( see Reuschenberg v Town of Huntington, 16 AD3d 568, 570 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for a preliminary injunction.