Nor do defendants contend that plaintiff's purported conduct was "immoral and unconscionable." (Levkoff v Soho Grand-West Broadway, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2014].)

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, it is well-established that the movant must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in movant's favor. (Levkoff v Soho Grand-West Broadway, Inc., 115 AD3d 536.) Respondents first argue that petitioners lack standing, and therefore cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits.

The doctrine is not one that the plaintiff U.S. Bank might have used to obtain its recovery. Levkoff v. Soho Grand-W. Broadway, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 2014).

Even were these allegations regarding the lack of necessity for plaintiff's lawsuit and its noncompliance with a requirement for a permit substantiated, Bank of Smithtown v. 264 West 124 LLC, 105 AD3d at 469 ; New York Community Bank v. Parade Place, LLC, 96 AD3d 542, 543 (1st Dep't 2012), they do not indicate that either the lawsuit or the noncompliance with the permit requirement was unconscionable or immoral, an essential element of an unclean hands defense. Levkoff v. Soho Grand–W. Broadway, Inc., 115 AD3d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 2014) ; Bank of Smithtown v. 264 West 124 LLC, 105 AD3d at 469 ; Citibank, N.A. v. American Banana Co., Inc., 50 AD3d 593, 594 (1st Dep't 2008) ; Willett v. Lincolnshire Mgt., 302 A.D.2d 271, 271 (1st Dep't 2003). While the Wadsworth defendants support the lack of necessity for the lawsuit with hearsay from a New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) inspector that DOB would have lifted the Stop Work Order, had the builder Finkelman applied for a routine permit, Aff. of Eli Bobker ¶ 13 (Nov. 22, 2013), this fact still does not indicate the requisite unconscionable conduct or immorality in prosecuting the lawsuit.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in movant's favor. (Levkoff v Soho Grand-West Broadway, Inc., 115 AD3d 536.)

Even were these allegations regarding the lack of necessity for plaintiff's lawsuit and its noncompliance with a requirement for a permit substantiated, Bank of Smithtown v. 264 West 124 LLC, 105 AD3d at 469; New York Community Bank v. Parade Place, LLC, 96 AD3d 542, 543 (1st Dep't 2012), they do not indicate that either the lawsuit or the noncompliance with the permit requirement was unconscionable or immoral, an essential element of an unclean hands defense. Levkoff v. Soho Grand-W. Broadway, Inc., 115 AD3d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 2014); Bank of Smithtown v. 264 West 124 LLC, 105 AD3d at 469; Citibank, N.A. v. American Banana Co., Inc., 50 AD3d 593, 594 (1st Dep't 2008); Willett v. Lincolnshire Mgt., 302 AD2d 271, 271 (1st Dep't 2003). While the Wadsworth defendants support the lack of necessity for the lawsuit with hearsay from a New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) inspector that DOB would have lifted the Stop Work Order, had the builder Finkelman applied for a routine permit, Aff. of Eli Bobker ¶ 13 (Nov. 22, 2013), this fact still does not indicate the requisite unconscionable conduct or immorality in prosecuting the lawsuit.

III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Absent admissible evidence supporting the merits of plaintiff's proposed claims, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their merits, East Riv. Fifties Alliance, Inc. v. City of New York, 178 A.D.3d 492, 493-94 (1st Dep't 2019); CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v. CWCapital Invs. LLC, 168 A.D.3d 567, 568 (1st Dep't 2019); LGC USA Holdings, Inc. v. Taly Diamonds, LLC, 121 A.D.3d 529, 530 (1st Dep't 2014); Levkoff v. Soho Grand-W. Broadway, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 2014), a principal requirement for a preliminary injunction. C.P.L.R. §§ 6301, 6312(a); Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 (2005); Stoner v. Atlantic Realty Apts., LLC, 154 A.D.3d 552, 553 (1st Dep't 2017); IME Watchdog Inc. v. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovitz, P.C., 145 A.D.3d 464, 465 (1st Dep't 2016); Thorton v. New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 125 A.D.3d 444, 445 (1st Dep't 2015).

In addition, an "unclean hands" defense (when available) requires proof of conduct that was unconscionable or immoral. Levkoff v. Soho Grand-W. Broadway, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 2014). I understand that Mr. Nieves believes that Baja's conduct met that standard, but the evidence at trial did not sustain that contention.