Hulse v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hulse v. Mack

261 A.D.2d 580, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5702

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 580 (Hulse v. Mack) 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

Hulse v. Mack, 261 A.D.2d 580, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated March 23, 1998, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are issues of fact concerning the intention of the grantors of the easement, and the parties’ conduct prior to and subsequent to the grant, which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see, Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d 443, 453-454; Phillips v Jacobsen, 117 AD2d 785, 786). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated March 23, 1998, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are issues of fact concerning the intention of the grantors of the easement, and the parties’ conduct prior to and subsequent to the grant, which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see, Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d 443, 453-454; Phillips v Jacobsen, 117 AD2d 785, 786). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 580, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulse-v-mack-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack