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

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

DecidedApril 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 582 (150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates v. Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/150-18-28-union-turnpike-associates-v-board-of-managers-of-village-mall-at-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack