150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates v. Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates v. Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium

304 A.D.2d 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 2003·Published

Opinion

In a holdover summary eviction proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated October 23, 2001, which, inter alia, reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (Greenbaum, J.), dated January 17, 2000, which dismissed the petition, and, inter alia, awarded a judgment of possession to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the contention of the Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium (hereinafter the condominium) that the subject agreement between 150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates (hereinafter the Associates) and the Associates’ predecessor-in-title conveyed an easement to the condominium pursuant to which the condominium could use 20 parking spaces belonging to the Associates. The agreement conveyed a license rather than an easement (see Willow Tex v Dimacopoulos, 68 NY2d 963 [1986]).

The condominium’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a holdover summary eviction proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated October 23, 2001, which, inter alia, reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (Greenbaum, J.), dated January 17, 2000, which dismissed the petition, and, inter alia, awarded a judgment of possession to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the contention of the Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium (hereinafter the condominium) that the subject agreement between 150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates (hereinafter the Associates) and the Associates’ predecessor-in-title conveyed an easement to the condominium pursuant to which the condominium could use 20 parking spaces belonging to the Associates. The agreement conveyed a license rather than an easement (see Willow Tex v Dimacopoulos, 68 NY2d 963 [1986]).

The condominium’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates v. Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium, 304 A.D.2d 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 582 (150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates v. Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related