Legal Opinion
Drost v. Hookey
New York District Court
Decided May 14, 2009PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
C. Stephen Hackeling, J.
Undisputed Facts
The undisputed relevant facts presented are that Robert Drost, the petitioner, is the sole deeded title holder of the real property located at 43 Louisa Court, Northport, New York. Until recently, the petitioner resided there with his ex-girlfriend, the respondent, Kim Hookey, for in excess of three years. Prior to moving in together the respondent individually owned and resided in her own separate house. Contemporaneously with the petitioner’s move-in invitation, the respondent transferred a one-half interest in her house to him in…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Morone v. MoroneNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Bertles v. . NunanNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Dean v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Reynolds v. . Van BeurenNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Piotrowski v. LittleMiddletown City Court · 2010
- Kakwani v. KakwaniNassau County District Court · 2013
- Rodriguez v. GrecoNew York District Court · 2009
- Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. SeverinoCivil Court of the City of New York · 2012
- Heckman v. HeckmanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.