From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atifa v. Shairzad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2006
25 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2004-07661, 2004-07659.

January 10, 2006.

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants in Action No. 1 from entering upon real property located at 141-47 33rd Avenue, Flushing, New York, and for an accounting, and a related action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that legal and equitable title to the real property located at 141-47 33rd Avenue and 141-49 33rd Avenue, Flushing, New York, belongs to the plaintiff in Action No. 2, which were joined for trial, (1) the defendant Mohammed Akbar Shairzad in Action No. 1 appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered August 25, 2004, which, in effect, upon granting the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of all the evidence, for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in Action No. 1, and (2) the plaintiff in Action No. 2 appeals from a judgment of the same court, also entered August 25, 2004, which, in effect, upon granting the motion of the defendant in Action No. 2 pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of all the evidence, for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaims and to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against it in Action No. 2, and declared that the defendant in Action No. 2 is the lawful owner and is vested with absolute title to the property located at 141-49 33rd Avenue, Flushing, New York.

Catafago Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jacques Catafago of counsel), for appellants in both actions.

Nixon Peabody, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph J. Ortego and John Bolton of counsel) for respondents in both actions.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgments are reversed, on the law and the facts, the motions are denied, the pleadings are reinstated, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Based upon this record, we find that questions of fact existed at the conclusion of the parties' evidence that required determination by the jury ( see generally CPLR 4401; Singer v. Long Is. Light. Co., 211 AD2d 779, 780).


Summaries of

Atifa v. Shairzad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2006
25 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Atifa v. Shairzad

Case Details

Full title:ATIFA, Doing Business as MASJID HAZRAT ABUBAKR, Respondent, v. MOHAMMED…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 135
806 N.Y.S.2d 435

Citing Cases

Atifa v. Shairzad

In a prior decision and order dated January 10, 2006, we reversed two judgments (one in each action) in…