Greencove Associates, L. L. C. v. Equistate, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greencove Associates, L. L. C. v. Equistate, L. L. C.

278 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12869

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 276 (Greencove Associates, L. L. C. v. Equistate, L. L. C.) 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

Greencove Associates, L. L. C. v. Equistate, L. L. C., 278 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for trespass and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated September 28, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissal of the counterclaims, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In support of its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissal of the counterclaims, the plaintiff [277]*277failed to make out a prima facie case that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are triable issues of fact concerning, inter alia, whether the general public used the portion of the plaintiffs property over which the defendant contends that it has an easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion (see, Rogers v Holmes, 217 AD2d 609).

Further, where, as here, the facts are sharply disputed, a preliminary injunction will not be granted (see, Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680). Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for trespass and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated September 28, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissal of the counterclaims, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In support of its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissal of the counterclaims, the plaintiff [277]*277failed to make out a prima facie case that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are triable issues of fact concerning, inter alia, whether the general public used the portion of the plaintiffs property over which the defendant contends that it has an easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion (see, Rogers v Holmes, 217 AD2d 609).

Further, where, as here, the facts are sharply disputed, a preliminary injunction will not be granted (see, Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 AD2d 680). Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greencove-associates-l-l-c-v-equistate-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack