Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith

234 A.D.2d 434, 651 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13043
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 249 A.D.2d 281

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an easement over the defendant’s property and for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with its use of the easement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated March 22, 1996, which denied its motion to disqualify the defendant’s counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the court did not err in denying its motion to disqualify the defendant’s counsel (see, Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303; cf., Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith, 234 A.D.2d 434, 651 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

234 A.D.2d 434 (Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solow v. W. R. Grace & Co.
632 N.E.2d 437 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Cardinale v. Golinello
372 N.E.2d 26 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)