2023])."The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor" (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 [2005] [citations omitted]; accord Sardino v Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434 [3d Dept 2021]). Notably, where the party seeking the injunction establishes these elements, questions of fact raised by the opposing party are insufficient, on their own, to deny the motion; rather, "the court shall make a determination by hearing or otherwise whether each of the elements required for issuance of a preliminary injunction exists" (CPLR 6312 [c]; see Cooperstown Capital, LLC v Patton, 60 A.D.3d 1251, 1252 [3d Dept 2009]; Albany Med. Coll. v Lobel, 296 A.D.2d 701, 702 [3d Dept 2002]; Frank May Assoc. v Boughton, 281 A.D.2d 673, 674-675 [3d Dept 2001]).

"The decision to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and our review is limited to whether Supreme Court has either exceeded or abused its discretion as a matter of law" (Camp Bearberry, LLC v. Khanna, 212 A.D.3d 897, 898, 182 N.Y.S.3d 322 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see 23A Props., Inc. v. New Mayfair Dev. Corp., 212 A.D.3d 900, 901, 181 N.Y.S.3d 384 [3d Dept. 2023]). "The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor" (Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191 [2005] [citations omitted]; accord Sardino v. Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434, 145 N.Y.S.3d 636 [3d Dept. 2021]). Notably, where the party seeking the injunction establishes these elements, questions of fact raised by the opposing party are insufficient, on their own, to deny the motion; rather, "the court shall make a determination by hearing or otherwise whether each of the elements required for issuance of a preliminary injunction exists" (CPLR 6312[c]; see Cooperstown Capital, LLC v. Patton, 60 A.D.3d 1251, 1252, 876 N.Y.S.2d 186 [3d Dept. 2009]; Albany Med. Coll. v. Lobel, 296 A.D.2d 701, 702, 745 N.Y.S.2d 250 [3d Dept. 2002]; Frank May Assoc. v. Boughton, 281 A.D.2d 673, 674–675, 721 N.Y.S.2d 154 [3d Dept. 2001]).

We affirm. "The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor" ( Sardino v. Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434, 145 N.Y.S.3d 636 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPLR 6301 ). "The decision to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and our review is limited to whether Supreme Court has either exceeded or abused its discretion as a matter of law" ( Biles v. Whisher, 160 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 75 N.Y.S.3d 301 [3d Dept. 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

ich case only one guardian ad litem will be appointed for the unborn descendants of Jason Spiro. Regarding the merits of respondents’ motion for injunctive relief, it is well settled that "[a] preliminary injunction constitutes ‘drastic relief’ " ( Rural Community Coalition, Inc. v Village of Bloomingburg , 118 AD3d 1092, 1095 [3d Dept 2014], quoting Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Nassau , 101 AD3d 1505, 1509 [3d Dept 2012] ) and " ‘should be issued cautiously’ " (id. , quoting Uniformed Firefighters Assn. of Greater NY v City of New York , 79 NY2d 236, 241 [1992] ). "[W]hile ordinarily a decision within the trial court's discretion, nonetheless the party seeking [a preliminary injunction] ‘must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor’ " (id. , quoting Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc. , 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005] ; seeDoe v Axelrod , 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988] ; Sardino v Scholet Family Trust , 192 AD3d 1433, 1434 [3d Dept 2021] ; see alsoApple A.C. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v Apple Home Heating Corp. , 164 AD3d 460, 461 [2d Dept 2018] ). Movant must show "a sufficiently clear right to [the] equitable relief" sought ( Chrys v D.C.G. Dev. Co. , 187 AD2d 923, 924 [3d Dept 1992] ; seeRick J. Jarvis Assoc. v Stotler , 216 AD2d 649, 650 [3d Dept 1995] ; see alsoSaran v Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P. , 148 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2d Dept 2017] ).

"[W]hile ordinarily a decision within the trial court's discretion, nonetheless the party seeking [a preliminary injunction] 'must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor'" (id., quoting Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 [2005]; see Doe v Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 [1988]; Sardino v Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434 [3d Dept 2021]; see also Apple A.C. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v Apple Home Heating Corp., 164 A.D.3d 460, 461 [2d Dept 2018]). Movant must show "a sufficiently clear right to [the] equitable relief" sought (Chrys v D.C.G. Dev. Co., 187 A.D.2d 923, 924 [3d Dept 1992]; see Rick J. Jarvis Assoc. v Stotler, 216 A.D.2d 649, 650 [3d Dept 1995]; see also Saran v Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P., 148 A.D.3d 1197, 1199 [2d Dept 2017]). "A court evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction must be mindful that '[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties'" (Masjid Usman, Inc. v Beech 140, LLC, 68 A.D.3d 942, 942 [2d Dept 2009], quoting Matter of Wheaton/TMW Fourth Ave., LP v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 65 A.D.3d 1051, 1052 [2d Dept 2009]; accord Keller v Kay, 170 A.D.3d 978, 981 [2d Dept

Accordingly, an action for trespass over the lands of one property owner may not be maintained where the purported trespasser has acquired an easement of way over the land in question" (Patel v Garden Homes Mgt. Corp., 156 A.D.3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). As relevant here, a party seeking to establish a prescriptive easement "must show that its use of the property was open, notorious, continuous, hostile and under a claim of right for the requisite 10-year period" (JMMJ Dev., LLC v Town of Greenport, 222 A.D.3d 1281, 1283 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Sardino v Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1435 [3d Dept 2021]). Defendant's proof established that the LSWTP had been discharging effluent into Evans Lake since at least 1984 and there is sufficient proof that they had done so under a claim of right.

In support they cite to the cases of Norton v. Dubrey, 116 A.D.3d 1215, 983 N.Y.S.2d 679 (3d Dept 2014); Sardino v. Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 145 N.Y.S.3d 636 (3d Dept 2021) and County of Suffolk v. Givens, 106 A.D.3d 943, 967 N.Y.S.2d 387 (2d Dept 2013).

More specifically, "[a]n easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner's representation that an easement exists." Sardino v. Scholet Family Tr. , 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434, 145 N.Y.S.3d 636 (3d Dept. 2021). See alsoMattes v. Frankel , 157 N.Y. 603, 608 (1899) (party was estopped from denying a right of way); Riehlman v. Field , 81 A.D. 526, 528, 81 N.Y.S. 239 (4th Dept. 1903).

See also Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Products Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175 (1982); Marshall v. Pittsford Cent. Sch. Dist., 100 A.D.3d 1498, 1499 (4th Dept 2012), lv denied, 20 N.Y.3d 859 (2013); Bergner v. Kick, 85 A.D.2d 911, 911-912 (4th Dept 1981) (a court of equity may preclude a party from denying a material fact which he has induced another to rely upon thereby suffering foreseeable injury and damages), aff'd, 56 N.Y.2d 795 (1982). More specifically, "[a]n easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner's representation that an easement exists." Sardino v. Scholet Family Tr., 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1434 (3d Dept 2021). See also Mattes v. Frankel, 157 NY 603, 608 (1899) (party was estopped from denying a right of way); Riehlman v. Field, 81 AD 526, 528 (4th Dept 1903).

To the extent that petitioner has readily demonstrated that it will continue to be deprived of the right to use and enjoy its property absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that it has made the requisite showing of irreparable harm (see Sardino v Scholet Family Trust, 192 A.D.3d 1433, 1435 [2021]; Biles v Whisher, 160 A.D.3d 1159, 1161 [2018]). Finally, insofar as the balance of the equities is concerned, the record demonstrates quite clearly that-while unwilling to purchase and ship the gate selected by respondents in Pennsylvania-petitioner has attempted to work with respondents in procuring a similar gate locally that does not come with such high shipping expenses.