Maksymchak v. Pasquarille

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maksymchak v. Pasquarille

35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 577 (Maksymchak v. Pasquarille) 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

Maksymchak v. Pasquarille, 35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., dissents in part and votes to modify the judgment so as to require defendants to remove the gate. Martuseello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant-plaintiffs injunctive relief, with the following memorandum: I would reverse the judgment and grant plaintiffs injunctive relief compelling defendants to remove two fences and a gate which have been placed along and across a right-of-way used as a common driveway by the parties herein. The subject property is burdened by an easement, the declaration of which provides for an “ open and unobstructed ” right-of-way. In my opinion, the erection of the fences and gate constitutes an obstruction and is violative of the declaration of easement (Missionary Soc. of Salesian Cong. v. Evrotas, 256 N. Y. 86).

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

No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., dissents in part and votes to modify the judgment so as to require defendants to remove the gate. Martuseello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant-plaintiffs injunctive relief, with the following memorandum: I would reverse the judgment and grant plaintiffs injunctive relief compelling defendants to remove two fences and a gate which have been placed along and across a right-of-way used as a common driveway by the parties herein. The subject property is burdened by an easement, the declaration of which provides for an “ open and unobstructed ” right-of-way. In my opinion, the erection of the fences and gate constitutes an obstruction and is violative of the declaration of easement (Missionary Soc. of Salesian Cong. v. Evrotas, 256 N. Y. 86).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maksymchak-v-pasquarille-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack