Wappinger Apartments Second Corp. v. Town of Wappinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wappinger Apartments Second Corp. v. Town of Wappinger

30 A.D.2d 811, 293 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 811 (Wappinger Apartments Second Corp. v. Town of Wappinger) 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

Wappinger Apartments Second Corp. v. Town of Wappinger, 30 A.D.2d 811, 293 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated August 21, 1967, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, petitioner has not sustained its burden of showing a clear legal right to the relief requested. While we have treated petitioner’s affidavit as a reply to respondent’s affirmative defenses, we hold that no issues of fact exist requiring a trial. We find that there is a reasonably suitable alternative access from petitioner’s property to the public highways (cf. Matter of Syosset Ind. Bldrs. v. Town of Oyster Bay Highway Dept., 24 A D 2d 763). We are further of the opinion that on this record the proceeding is not barred by the provisions of CPLR 217. Since the respondents have not alleged the specific dates of their refusals to comply with petitioner’s demands, the elapsed period between the refusals and the institution of this proceeding cannot be measured (see Matter of O’Buck v. City of Yonkers, 2 A D 2d 775). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur. [55 Misc 2d 75.]

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated August 21, 1967, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, petitioner has not sustained its burden of showing a clear legal right to the relief requested. While we have treated petitioner’s affidavit as a reply to respondent’s affirmative defenses, we hold that no issues of fact exist requiring a trial. We find that there is a reasonably suitable alternative access from petitioner’s property to the public highways (cf. Matter of Syosset Ind. Bldrs. v. Town of Oyster Bay Highway Dept., 24 A D 2d 763). We are further of the opinion that on this record the proceeding is not barred by the provisions of CPLR 217. Since the respondents have not alleged the specific dates of their refusals to comply with petitioner’s demands, the elapsed period between the refusals and the institution of this proceeding cannot be measured (see Matter of O’Buck v. City of Yonkers, 2 A D 2d 775). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur. [55 Misc 2d 75.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 811, 293 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wappinger-apartments-second-corp-v-town-of-wappinger-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack