Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction pending the disposition of the action (see, Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 N.Y.2d 397, 403; Walker Mem. Baptist Church v Saunders, 285 N.Y. 462, 474; James v Board of Educ., 42 N.Y.2d 357, 363; Career Placement v Vaus, 77 Misc.2d 788, 795).
Additionally, we note that the granting of a preliminary injunction at this stage serves the salutary purpose of maintaining the status quo pending resolution of the underlying controversy (see, Matter of Brenner v Hart Sys., 114 A.D.2d 363, 367). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.