DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs demonstrated that they are likely to prove that they actually possessed the disputed parcel, and that the possession was open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, and under a claim of right for the statutory period (see RPAPL 521; Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N.Y. 296; Birnbaum v. Brody, 156 A.D.2d 408, 409). The plaintiffs further demonstrated that the equities favor them and that irreparable harm would result absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; cf. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was properly granted.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.