Stahl v. Stralberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stahl v. Stralberg

287 A.D.2d 613, 731 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9853

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 613 (Stahl v. Stralberg) 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

Stahl v. Stralberg, 287 A.D.2d 613, 731 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to remove encroaching structures pursuant to RPAPL 871, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gammer, J.), entered August 8, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The parties own adjoining parcels of real property in Kings County. In July 1999, the plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that a balcony that the defendants constructed over [614]*614their driveway in May 1999 encroached upon the plaintiffs’ property and interfered with an easement that the plaintiffs have for a roof overhang above the defendants’ property. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Counsel’s affirmation in support of the motion, made without personal knowledge of the facts, was not competent (cf., David Graubart, Inc. v Bank Leumi Trust Co., 48 NY2d 554, 559; S.J. Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341). Further, the defendants’ submissions of an unauthenticated survey as well as unauthenticated photographs of the property were improperly considered by the trial court (see, Gutierrez v Cohen, 227 AD2d 447, 448). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to remove encroaching structures pursuant to RPAPL 871, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gammer, J.), entered August 8, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The parties own adjoining parcels of real property in Kings County. In July 1999, the plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that a balcony that the defendants constructed over [614]*614their driveway in May 1999 encroached upon the plaintiffs’ property and interfered with an easement that the plaintiffs have for a roof overhang above the defendants’ property. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Counsel’s affirmation in support of the motion, made without personal knowledge of the facts, was not competent (cf., David Graubart, Inc. v Bank Leumi Trust Co., 48 NY2d 554, 559; S.J. Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341). Further, the defendants’ submissions of an unauthenticated survey as well as unauthenticated photographs of the property were improperly considered by the trial court (see, Gutierrez v Cohen, 227 AD2d 447, 448). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 613, 731 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stahl-v-stralberg-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack