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)