Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Margaret Yu, appellant, v. Dino Gentile, also known as Dean Gentile, et al., respondents.
Argued—May 25, 2012
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated September 29, 2010, which denied her motion to direct the defendants to comply with a prior order of the same court dated September 17, 2009, by moving an exterior stairway located on their property, and to direct the defendants to remove certain fixtures and plants that allegedly encroached on the plaintiff's property.
ORDERED that the order dated September 29, 2010, is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendants to comply with its prior order dated September 17, 2009, by moving an exterior stairway located on their property, as the prior order did not affirmatively direct the defendants to move the stairway, but rather stated only that the plaintiff was entitled to certain declaratory relief. Further, we note that during the pendency of the instant appeal, in a separate appeal taken from a judgment in a related CPLR article 78 proceeding, this Court annulled so much of a determination of the Village of Tuckahoe Zoning Board of Appeals as, upon granting the defendants' application for an area variance, imposed a condition that the defendants move the subject stairway (see Matter of Gentile v Vil. of Tuckahoe Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 AD3d 695, 696).
The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate her entitlement to an order directing the defendants to remove the fixtures and plants that allegedly encroached on her property (see RPAPL 871; Broser v. Schubach, 85 AD3d 957; Town of Fishkill v. Turner, 60 AD3d 932, 933; see also Marsh v. Hogan, 81 AD3d 1241, 1242).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, A.P.J., ANGIOLILLO, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–10533 (Index No. 7966 /07)
Decided: August 01, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)