Legal Opinion
Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 1999PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
James H. Shaw, Jr., J.
Defendants Ruth Lichtenstein and Samuel Lichtenstein move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 4101, striking plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial. By separate application, defendants move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3403, granting defendants a trial preference.
Plaintiffs Bernard N. Lillianfeld and Florence Lillianfeld commenced this action seeking a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from building on a portion of defendants’ rear yard, over which plaintiffs claim to have an easement by prescription. Plaintiffs further seek a declaration of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Howard v. MurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Hebranko v. Bioline Laboratories, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Miles v. De SapioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Cilwick v. CameloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Noto v. HeadleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barberan v. NationpointDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Decana Inc. v. ContogourisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007