You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants had raised questions of fact about the location of plaintiff’s (Finster’s) easement over defendants’ land. Summary judgment should not have been granted to Finster:

… Multiple longtime neighborhood residents provided sworn statements claiming that no roadway ever existed at the location of the disputed driveway prior to Finster’s ownership of 70 Middle Road. Further, one neighbor contradicted [pllaintiff’s] claim that the quarry property can only be accessed by the disputed driveway by claiming that it had historically been accessed by a different road. Hence, defendants’ submissions raised material issues of fact as to whether Finster’s easement appurtenant included the disputed driveway or, otherwise, whether the quarry parcel was landlocked, proof of which is essential to plaintiffs’ easement by necessity claim … . Finster Inc. v Albin, 2017 NY Slip Op 05651, 3rd Dept 7-13-17

REAL PROPERTY (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/EASEMENTS  (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
COUNTY COURT, SUA SPONTE, IN GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, RELIED ON FACTORS ABOUT WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED BEFORE THE SORA HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING AFTER PROPER NOTICE (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK WITH A BALL DURING A PRACTICE DRILL WHERE MULTIPLE BALLS WERE IN PLAY; TWO DISSENTING MEMORANDA (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S AND THE CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEYS SHARED THE SAME OFFICE AND WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER REQUIRED A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION; DEFENDANT ARGUED HE WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (THIRD DEPT).
Transfer to Another County for Probation Did Not Divest Sentencing Court of Jurisdiction Over Defendant’s Violation of His Intermittent Sentence​
ALTHOUGH THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS CONDUCTING A STRIP SEARCH OF CLAIMANT PRISONER WERE PARTIALLY MOTIVATED BY THE INTENT TO HUMILIATE, THEY WERE DEEMED TO BE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL TORTS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT-DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT-DRIVER WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND WHEN HE STOPPED QUICKLY AFTER AN SUV MERGED INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S... COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE...