Jainarine v. Marzulli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jainarine v. Marzulli

267 A.D.2d 281, 699 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12873

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 281 (Jainarine v. Marzulli) 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

Jainarine v. Marzulli, 267 A.D.2d 281, 699 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a certain driveway, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), entered December 2, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to introduce into evidence the deposition testimony of a witness (see, CPLR-3117 [a] [3] [ii]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a certain driveway, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), entered December 2, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to introduce into evidence the deposition testimony of a witness (see, CPLR-3117 [a] [3] [ii]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 281, 699 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jainarine-v-marzulli-nyappdiv-1999.