2645 Nostrand Realty Corp. v. Yisroel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2645 Nostrand Realty Corp. v. Yisroel

3 A.D.3d 561, 770 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 690

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 561 (2645 Nostrand Realty Corp. v. Yisroel) 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

2645 Nostrand Realty Corp. v. Yisroel, 3 A.D.3d 561, 770 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover possession of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated June 11, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are issues of fact requiring the denial of the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover possession of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated June 11, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are issues of fact requiring the denial of the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 561, 770 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2645-nostrand-realty-corp-v-yisroel-nyappdiv-2004.