Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Properties, Inc.

149 A.D.2d 581, 540 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 581 (Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Properties, Inc.) 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

Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Properties, Inc., 149 A.D.2d 581, 540 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the respective rights and obligations of the parties with respect to an alleged easement burdening the defendant’s real property and certain rights of access to the defendant’s water and sewer systems, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered June 28, 1988, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

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

The defendant was not entitled to an award of summary judgment, as its papers submitted in support of the motion failed to include a copy of the pleadings as required by statute (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Freeman v Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 AD2d 436). Inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not reach the question of the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 respective rights and obligations of the parties with respect to an alleged easement burdening the defendant’s real property and certain rights of access to the defendant’s water and sewer systems, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered June 28, 1988, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

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

The defendant was not entitled to an award of summary judgment, as its papers submitted in support of the motion failed to include a copy of the pleadings as required by statute (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Freeman v Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 AD2d 436). Inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not reach the question of the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 581, 540 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somers-realty-corp-v-big-v-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack