There was no evidentiary support for a finding that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm substantially outweighing injury the injunction would cause defendant-respondent ( see Matter of Angiolillo v Town of Greenburgh, 21 AD3d 1101, 1104). The record discloses no nonspeculative ground to support a finding that defendant's rebuilt retaining wall presents a danger to plaintiff that would warrant mandating the expensive and difficult work required to remove the rebuilt wall and build yet a third wall. Upon weighing the relative circumstances, the motion court properly found that the encroachment of 1½ to 334 inches onto plaintiffs property is de minimis ( see Generalow v Steinberger, 131 AD2d 634, 635, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 928, and lv denied 70 NY2d 616; Christopher v Rosse, 91 AD2d 768, 769). With only plaintiffs claim for money damages remaining, the notice of pendency was properly cancelled ( see Ola Contr. Co. v Guild Capital, 285 AD2d 382, 383).