Missere v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Missere v. Grant

272 A.D.2d 455, 708 N.Y.S.2d 309, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 455 (Missere v. Grant) 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

Missere v. Grant, 272 A.D.2d 455, 708 N.Y.S.2d 309, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod; J.), dated January 8, 1999, which, inter alia, denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There are issues of fact as to the viability of the plaintiffs’ title to the property and as to whether the plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest had reserved an easement across the private road in question. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio 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 a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod; J.), dated January 8, 1999, which, inter alia, denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There are issues of fact as to the viability of the plaintiffs’ title to the property and as to whether the plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest had reserved an easement across the private road in question. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 455, 708 N.Y.S.2d 309, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missere-v-grant-nyappdiv-2000.