You are here: / / Sunset Provision in a Deed Which Referred to “Restrictions” Did Not Aff...

Sunset Provision in a Deed Which Referred to “Restrictions” Did Not Affect “Easements” or “Reservations”

The Third Department determined that a sunset provision in a deed which referred to restrictions did not affect easements or reservations.  The provision in the deed which created an easement for utilities, therefore, was valid and enforceable:

Restrictions “restrain servient landowners from making otherwise lawful uses of their property” …, and Schedule A contains various paragraphs restricting, for example, the construction of certain kinds of buildings and the raising of animals on defendants’ property.  These are sometimes referred to as negative easements, as opposed to a reservation to the grantor of an affirmative easement to maintain utility lines on defendants’ property … .  We view the common grantor’s failure to refer to reservations in the sunset provision as a deliberate choice to avoid the termination of easements on January 1, 2005.  Johnson v Zelanis, 516184, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

You might also like
Employee’s Use of Personal Checking Account Did Not Amount to Misconduct
COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
THE CLAIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT MET THE PLEADING CRITERIA OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT; THE FOUR-YEAR TIME FRAME WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE; THE FACTS ALLEGED SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE NATURE OF THE DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF.
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED UPON HER DISMISSAL FROM A NURSING PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
USE OF MOTION TO REARGUE TO RAISE NEW ISSUES REQUIRED REVERSAL.

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

Violation of a Local Law Did Not Demonstrate a Horse Pen Constituted a Private... Question of Fact Whether Wife of Decedent Had Abandoned Decedent