You are here: / / Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met
, ,

Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met

The Second Department determined the city had failed to demonstrate that an unmapped roadway used since the 1970’s had become a public highway under the Highway Law, and the city failed to demonstrate an “easement in favor of public use” existed over the portion of the roadway which was on defendant’s land. The “Highway Law” statute invoked by the city applied only to towns, not cities. And the requirements for an easement in favor of public use had not been demonstrated. The court explained the easement requirements:

The City argues … that an easement in favor of the public was created over the defendant’s property pursuant to the common-law doctrine of dedication. This doctrine requires evidence of the owner’s intent to dedicate the property for public use and acceptance of the dedication by the public authorities … . Here, however, the City’s submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant’s land had been dedicated to the use of public travel by any prior owner or the defendant. City of New York v Gounden, 2015 NY Slip Op 06569, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS A PATIENT’S RISK OF FALLING AND NEED FOR SUPERVISION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.
NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.
MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Allegation Plaintiff Driver Stopped Suddenly for No Reason Raised a Question of Fact About Whether the Driver Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle from Behind Was Negligent
Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous
Court Should Have Taken Judicial Notice of Father’s False Allegations in Prior Proceedings in the Same Court/Court Should Not Have Drawn an Adverse Inference from Mother’s Failure to Call a Witness without Informing Mother of Its Intent to Do So

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

Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory... Address Errors Rendered Designating Petition Invalid—Petitioner Not Entitled...