5000, INC., res-ap, v. HUDSON ONE, INC., APPELLANT-res

5000, INC., res-ap, v. HUDSON ONE, INC., APPELLANT-res — (INDEX NO. 8711/09)In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL 871 for an injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing and occupying real property allegedly owned by the plaintiff and directing the defendant to remove certain encroachments, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated July 10, 2012, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was based upon the plaintiff's alleged ownership of a certain portion of a certain private street and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment determining that it owns the subject portion of the private street and granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to amend its answer.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

5000, INC., res-ap, v. HUDSON ONE, INC., APPELLANT-res — (INDEX NO. 8711/09)In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL 871 for an injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing and occupying real property allegedly owned by the plaintiff and directing the defendant to remove certain encroachments, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated July 10, 2012, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was based upon the plaintiff’s alleged ownership of a certain portion of a certain private street and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment determining that it owns the subject portion of the private street and granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to amend its answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

5000, INC., res-ap, v. HUDSON ONE, INC., APPELLANT-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal