Smith v. Antonik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Antonik

188 A.D.2d 457, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13642

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 457 (Smith v. Antonik) 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

Smith v. Antonik, 188 A.D.2d 457, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for a determination of the plaintiffs’ claim to certain real property by adverse possession, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 28, 1990, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[458]*458The affidavits submitted in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion were sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership by adverse possession. Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for a determination of the plaintiffs’ claim to certain real property by adverse possession, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 28, 1990, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[458]*458The affidavits submitted in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion were sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership by adverse possession. Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 457, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-antonik-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack