1380 Madison Avenue, L.L.C. v. 17 East Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1380 Madison Avenue, L.L.C. v. 17 East Owners Corp.

12 A.D.3d 156, 783 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13064

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 156 (1380 Madison Avenue, L.L.C. v. 17 East Owners Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1380 Madison Avenue, L.L.C. v. 17 East Owners Corp., 12 A.D.3d 156, 783 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 15, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish adverse possession and/or prescriptive easement by reason of its air conditioning units protruding into plaintiff’s air space because it was unable to demonstrate that such possession was actual, hostile or under claim of right (see Joseph v Whitcombe, 279 AD2d 122 [2001]; see also Landgray Assoc. v 450 Lexington Venture, L.P., 788 F Supp 776 [SD NY 1992]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 15, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish adverse possession and/or prescriptive easement by reason of its air conditioning units protruding into plaintiff’s air space because it was unable to demonstrate that such possession was actual, hostile or under claim of right (see Joseph v Whitcombe, 279 AD2d 122 [2001]; see also Landgray Assoc. v 450 Lexington Venture, L.P., 788 F Supp 776 [SD NY 1992]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 156, 783 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1380-madison-avenue-llc-v-17-east-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack