Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief against a violation of its zoning ordinances, a town must demonstrate that it has a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, and that the equities are balanced in its favor (see, Town of Southampton v. Sendlewski, 156 A.D.2d 669; Town of Islip v. Clark, 90 A.D.2d 500). The question of whether immediate relief of this nature should be extended is a matter governed by equitable principles (see, Town of Southampton v. Sendlewski, supra). Moreover, "`the remedy of granting a preliminary injunction is a drastic one which should be used sparingly'" and which will not be granted absent a showing that there is a clear right to such relief on the undisputed facts presented (see, Schneider Leasing Plus v Stallone, 172 A.D.2d 739, 740, quoting McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v Nolan Co., 114 A.D.2d 165, 172).
Here, there are questions of fact regarding the defendants' use of the property and the plaintiff has failed to establish a clear right to a preliminary injunction (see, Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N.Y.2d 278; Town of Southampton v Sendlewski, supra).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.