Legal Opinion

Hryckowian v. Pulaski

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

Decided April 27, 1998PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have an easement of ingress and egress over the property of the defendant known as Columbia Avenue, and to enjoin the defendant from interfering with that easement, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 10, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs Stan J. Hryckowian, Lillian Luba Hryckowian, and Marie Renard.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Di Leo v. Pecksto Holding Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
  3. Borruso v. MorrealeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  4. 2239 Hylan Boulevard Corp. v. SaccheriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  5. Cannon v. SikoraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Tarr v. DelsenerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  2. Frumkin v. ChemtopAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  3. Eskenazi v. SloatAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API