Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 20, 2005 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 6, 2005, made, in effect, upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 6, 2005 is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto directing the plaintiff to provide an undertaking; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the fixing of the amount of the undertaking; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in its favor ( see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; Cruz v McAneney, 29 AD3d 512; William M. Blake Agency v Leon, 283 AD2d 423, 424; Somers Stained Glass Corp. v Somers Designs, 277 AD2d 442). Further, the hearing court's credibility determination is entitled to great weight on appeal ( Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for a preliminary injunction ( see Cruz v McAneney, supra).
Although the fixing of the amount of an undertaking when granting a motion for a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the court ( see Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348), the language of CPLR 6312 (b) is "clear and unequivocal," and it requires the party seeking the injunction to give an undertaking ( Carter v Konstantatos, 156 AD2d 632, 633; see Pitterson v Watson, 299 AD2d 467). Thus, under the circumstances of the instant case, the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it granted the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction without requiring him to give an undertaking which would "reimburse the defendant for damages sustained if it [were] later finally determined that the preliminary injunction was erroneously granted" ( Schwartz v Gruber, 261 AD2d 526).