Barbieri v. D'Angelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barbieri v. D'Angelo

128 A.D.2d 661, 513 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44352

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 661 (Barbieri v. D'Angelo) 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

Barbieri v. D'Angelo, 128 A.D.2d 661, 513 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for interference with the plaintiff’s use of an alleged easement over certain property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), entered January 17, 1986, which, upon an order dated [662]*662December 4, 1985, granting the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the respondents and against him. (We deem the notice of appeal from the order dated December 4, 1985 to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmation of the plaintiffs attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the plaintiffs claimed easement over the respondents’ property (see, e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Pastore v Zlatniski, 112 AD2d 840). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 damages for interference with the plaintiff’s use of an alleged easement over certain property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), entered January 17, 1986, which, upon an order dated [662]*662December 4, 1985, granting the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the respondents and against him. (We deem the notice of appeal from the order dated December 4, 1985 to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmation of the plaintiffs attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the plaintiffs claimed easement over the respondents’ property (see, e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Pastore v Zlatniski, 112 AD2d 840). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 661, 513 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbieri-v-dangelo-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack