Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the court did not mischaracterize the relief requested. A Yellowstone injunction (see, First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 N.Y.2d 630) was specifically requested in their reply. Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion. The motion was untimely, since the plaintiffs did not move for injunctive relief until after the expiration of the cure period specified in the defendants' notice to cure, and after the termination notice had been served (see, Ritz Entertainment Org. v Unity Gallega, 166 A.D.2d 186). Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their willingness to cure their default short of vacating the premises (see, Linmont Realty v Vitocarl, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 618, 620). There is no indication that the plaintiffs were willing to seek a use variance. Nor did they attempt to compel the defendants to do so. Instead, the plaintiffs commenced the present action to, inter alia, rescind the commercial lease. Therefore, the record establishes that the plaintiffs seek to discharge their default by rescinding the lease and not to reform the lease or cure the default and occupy the leased premises.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.