Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.
In order to prevail upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) 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, Price Paper Twine Co. v. Miller, 182 A.D.2d 748, 749; see, CPLR 6301; Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496; Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood, 137 A.D.2d 22). The movant's bare and conclusory allegations in this case are clearly insufficient to support the granting of a preliminary injunction (see, Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood, supra; Kaufman v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 97 A.D.2d 925, 926, affd 61 N.Y.2d 930). There are sharp factual disputes as to key issues which preclude a finding of the movant's likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor (see, Schneider Leasing Plus v Stallone, 172 A.D.2d 739, 740). Under the circumstances, we find that the granting of the plaintiff's application constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.