Opinion
May 28, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from interfering with their use of a driveway located on and between the plaintiffs' property and the appellants' property. The plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities in their favor ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860; Melvin v Union Coll., 195 A.D.2d 447; Astoria Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v June, 190 A.D.2d 644; Burmax Co. v. B S Indus., 135 A.D.2d 599; 487 Elmwood v. Hassett, 107 A.D.2d 285; Matter of XAR Corp. v. Di Donato, 76 A.D.2d 972). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.