You are here: / / NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951...

NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were not entitled to amend their pleadings to conform to the proof after a nonjury trial in this adverse possession proceeding. Plaintiffs sought adverse possession of portions “paper streets” on both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ (Hart’s) land arguing that any easement had been abandoned and should be extinguished pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1951. The court explained that non-use alone does not constitute abandonment and RPAPL 1951 cannot be used to retroactively extinguish an easement on someone else’s land:

​

Because nonuse, as a matter of law, does not establish intent to abandon, and given that plaintiffs did not allege that the proof showed any other acts that would be cognizable in satisfying the requirement of “unequivocal [acts] . . . clearly demonstrat[ing] the owner[s’] intention to permanently relinquish all rights to [an] easement” … , plaintiffs’ proposed amendment regarding abandonment of any easement is palpably insufficient on its face … . …

​

As the Court of Appeals has made clear, the Legislature intended for RPAPL 1951 (2) to make “available to owners of parcels burdened with outmoded restrictions an economical and efficient means of getting rid of them” … . As the Legislature intended for the provision to allow landowners to seek the extinguishment of restrictions on their property, the provision does not permit plaintiffs to extinguish an easement on Hart’s property. Moreover, the relevant inquiry for RPAPL 1951 focuses on “the time the enforceability of the restriction is brought in question” … . That time frame is a plain indication that any act by a court in extinguishing a restriction would not apply to a time prior to when the enforceability of the restriction was challenged. Therefore, as RPAPL 1951 (2) does not permit plaintiffs to retroactively extinguish an easement on Hart’s property, it is inapplicable to plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim. Ferguson v Hart, 2017 NY Slip Op 04523, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (ADVERSE POSSESSION, EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/ADVERSE POSSESSION (EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)ABANDONMENT (EASEMENTS,  NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/EXTINGUISHMENT (EASEMENTS, RPAPL 1951, ADVERSE POSSESSION, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)

You might also like
DOCUMENTS CREATED AND HELD BY A PRIVATE ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS OF A STATE AGENCY ARE NOT “RECORDS” WHICH THE STATE AGENCY MUST DISCLOSE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AGENCY CAN DEMAND PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED.
IN THIS COMPLEX CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED MISUSE OF LAND GIFTED TO THE AUDUBON SOCIETY AS “FOREVER WILD” AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ARGUMENT THE DEED WAS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE NEVER TRIGGERD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS REJECTED; THE DEED WAS DEEMED “VOIDABLE” AND THE STATUTE HAD THEREFORE RUN; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT THE MATTER BACK TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT WHICH RESULTED IN THE MISBEHAVIOR CHARGE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
CLUB FEATURING SEMI-NUDE DANCERS WAS SUBJECT TO SALES TAX FOR SALE OF IN-HOUSE CURRENCY USED FOR ACCESS TO PRIVATE-ROOM DANCES (THIRD DEPT).
Corrections Officer Not Entitled to Performance of Duty Disability Benefits Based Upon Injury Stemming from Aiding an Inmate Who Was Having a Seizure
BECAUSE NO PETITION HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, A DEFECT THAT MAY BE BROUGHT UP AT ANY TIME (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING... THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF...