Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief based on a violation of its zoning ordinances, a town need not satisfy the traditional three-part test for injunctive relief, but is required "only [to] show that it has a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits and that the equities are balanced in its favor" ( First Franklin Sq. Assoc, LLC v Franklin Sq. Prop. Account, 15 AD3d 529, 533; see Town of Huntington v Pierce Arrow Realty Corp., 216 AD2d 287, 288; Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Jefferson Indoor Mar., 162 AD2d 434, 436). To obtain relief, a town must "come forward with a strong prima facie showing that the defendants are violating its zoning ordinance" ( Town of Oyster Bay v Sodomsky, 154 AD2d 455, 455; see Town of Oyster Bay v Dyott, 246 AD2d 531). Here, since the Town of Islip failed to make a strong prima facie showing that the use of the subject property as a marina was not a preexisting nonconforming use, or that the proposed docking of a commercial excursion boat would impermissibly expand such nonconforming use, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the Town's motion for preliminary injunctive relief ( see Town of Southampton v Sendlewski 156 AD2d 669, 670; Town of Oyster Bay v Sodomsky, 154 AD2d 455; CPLR 4401).
Contrary to the Town's contention, the Supreme Court did not, in effect, award partial summary judgment to the defendants.