You are here: / / USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY...

USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION WAS NOT CREATED.

Affirming the judgment pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15, the Second Department determined plaintiff (Colin Realty) demonstrated the use of its land by neighboring property owners over the years was permissive, not hostile. Therefore no easement by prescription had been created and plaintiff could properly prohibit defendants’ use of the land:

“An easement by prescription is generally demonstrated by proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period” … . In general, “where an easement has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be open, notorious, continuous, and undisputed, it is presumed that the use was hostile, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the allegedly prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive” … . This presumption, however, does not arise “when the parties’ relationship was one of neighborly cooperation or accommodation” … . Similarly, the presumption of hostility is inapplicable when the use by the claimant is not “exclusive” … . In this regard, ” exclusivity’ is not established where [a claimant’s] use is in connection with the use of the owner and the general public” … .

Here, while … it appears undisputed that the defendants’ traversing of Colin Realty’s lot was open, notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period, the court properly determined that the presumption of hostility did not arise. Fred Colin, the manager of Colin Realty, testified that he permitted such use to [defendant] Fradler and the public at large as a matter of willing accord and neighborly accommodation. He further explained how he had, over the years, protected Colin Realty’s ownership interest when others had abused the permission he afforded. Colin Realty Co., LLC v Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01633, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

REAL PROPERTY (EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION NOT CREATED, USE WAS PERMISSIVE NOT HOSTILE)/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION NOT CREATED, USE WAS PERMISSIVE NOT HOSTILE)

You might also like
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IN NEW YORK A MARRIAGE WHICH HAS BEEN SOLEMNIZED IS VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).
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).
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY FOUND PLAINTIFF SUFFERED PERMANENT INJURY IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BUT AWARDED $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES; THE DAMAGES AWARD WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (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

PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AFTER IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS;... FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE...