You are here: / / Criteria for Easement Granted in General Terms

Criteria for Easement Granted in General Terms

In determining Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for an easement granted in general terms:

Where, as here, an easement is granted in general terms, “the extent of its use includes any reasonable use necessary and convenient for the purpose for which it is created”…. Further, the holder of an access easement “cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate” … . Shuttle Contr Corp v Peikarian, 2013 NY Slip Op 05057, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REASONABLY DESCRIBED IS DISTINCT FROM WHETHER A SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME; THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED AND THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER A SEARCH WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME (SECOND DEPT).
Neither Plaintiff Nor Intervenor Bank Had Standing to Determine Validity of Mortgage
STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE AN ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS WAS DEEMED NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent V... Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement