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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 24, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

261 A.D.2d 580 (Hulse v. Mack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related