Zupa v. Paradise Point Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zupa v. Paradise Point Ass'n

31 A.D.3d 538, 818 N.Y.S.2d 589

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 538 (Zupa v. Paradise Point Ass'n) 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

Zupa v. Paradise Point Ass'n, 31 A.D.3d 538, 818 N.Y.S.2d 589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated September 29, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc., denied their separate motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc., for leave to amend its answer to add a counterclaim and an affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to determine the rights concerning a basin abutting their property. They alleged, among other things, that the docks owned by the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc. (hereinafter the PPA), unreasonably interfered with their right of access to the navigable waters of a canal leading to the Southold Bay.

The plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the PPA since the evidence proffered was insufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, 38 AD2d 263, 264 [1972], affd 32 NY2d 859 [1973]). In any event, we note that the PPA raised issues of fact, inter alia, as to the level of interference, if any, with the plaintiffs’ right of access to navigable waters (see Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, supra).

[539]*539The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Covello, 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 to determine claims to certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated September 29, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc., denied their separate motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc., for leave to amend its answer to add a counterclaim and an affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to determine the rights concerning a basin abutting their property. They alleged, among other things, that the docks owned by the defendant Paradise Point Association, Inc. (hereinafter the PPA), unreasonably interfered with their right of access to the navigable waters of a canal leading to the Southold Bay.

The plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the PPA since the evidence proffered was insufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, 38 AD2d 263, 264 [1972], affd 32 NY2d 859 [1973]). In any event, we note that the PPA raised issues of fact, inter alia, as to the level of interference, if any, with the plaintiffs’ right of access to navigable waters (see Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, supra).

[539]*539The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Covello, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 538, 818 N.Y.S.2d 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zupa-v-paradise-point-assn-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack