The order enjoining defendants and all persons acting on their behalf or in concert with them "from interfering with plaintiff's business by approaching, accosting, initiating communications with, distributing written communications to, or otherwise disturbing visitors to the Ansonia for the purpose of discouraging sales or rentals of apartments at the Ansonia" was not an improvident exercise of discretion. We agree with the IAS Court that defendants' conduct was not protected speech but merely an instrument of and incidental to wrongful conduct ( see, Trojan Elec. Mach. Co. v. Heusinger, 162 A.D.2d 859, 860), calculated to injure plaintiff's business and interfere with the condominium owners' recognized interest in residential privacy ( supra; see also, Lambert v. Williams, 218 A.D.2d 618, 621). We note in addition that the relief was narrowly tailored to proscribe only offensive conduct directed at persons about to enter the private confines of the Ansonia.
The IAS Court also correctly concluded that plaintiff's action is not a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit (Civil Rights Law § 76-a [a]; Bell v. Little, 250 A.D.2d 485; Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647, 650-651), that it is not frivolous (CPLR 8303-a; see, Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v. Davis, 198 A.D.2d 63), and that the documentary evidence did not definitively dispose of the matter ( see, Fischbach Moore v. Howell Co., 240 A.D.2d 157). We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.