Opinion
September 29, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the order dated October 3, 1996, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 15, 1996, is reversed, on the law, and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs have successfully demonstrated their entitlement to a preliminary injunction ( cf., Schlichting v. K'Hal Adas Kashau, 195 A.D.2d 551). The plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their claim that a restrictive covenant required the defendants to preserve the natural characteristics of the so-called woodland buffer zone bordering the parties' properties. Moreover, the plaintiffs have further demonstrated that the equities favor them and that irreparable harm would result-absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860; Fulop v. Sea Gate Assn., 214 A.D.2d 536; Melvin v. Union Coll., 195 A.D.2d 447; Jurlique, Inc. v. Austral Biolab Pty., 187 A.D.2d 637).
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' cause of action sounding in adverse possession ( see, Litwin v. Town of Huntington, 208 A.D.2d 905; Esposito v. Stackler, 160 A.D.2d 1154).
Thompson, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.