McCormick v. Long

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCormick v. Long

226 A.D.2d 1067, 641 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526

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

DecidedApril 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 1067 (McCormick v. Long) 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

McCormick v. Long, 226 A.D.2d 1067, 641 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We affirm that portion of the judgment that decrees that plaintiffs are the owners of the beach area lying between the high bank on their property and the waters of Lake Erie. We modify the judgment, however, by vacating the second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs and by denying the motion and cross motion for summary judgment insofar as they seek a declaration of the easement rights of defendants over the beach area. Factual issues exist regarding the nature and scope of the easements granted in common to all owners of the subdivision. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We affirm that portion of the judgment that decrees that plaintiffs are the owners of the beach area lying between the high bank on their property and the waters of Lake Erie. We modify the judgment, however, by vacating the second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs and by denying the motion and cross motion for summary judgment insofar as they seek a declaration of the easement rights of defendants over the beach area. Factual issues exist regarding the nature and scope of the easements granted in common to all owners of the subdivision. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 1067, 641 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-long-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack