Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to prevail upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) there is a likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits of the action, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and (3) the balance of equities is in favor of the movant ( see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 NY2d 496). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending determination of the action ( see Schweizer v. Town of Smithtown, 19 AD3d 682; Rattner Assoc. v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 294 AD2d 346). The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604).
Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.