You are here: / / EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE...

EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an easement had been extinguished when the same party became the owner of both affected parcels and plaintiff was not entitled to an easement by necessity:

​

“An easement is not a personal right of the landowner but is an appurtenance to the land benefitted by it (the dominant estate). It is inseparable from the land and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement” … . Here, the subject property and the adjoining property came under common ownership on October 31, 2008 … [T]he easement that came into existence in 1974 was extinguished by merger.

* * * [The] … cause of action, for a declaration that the plaintiff had an easement by necessity, contained only vague and conclusory allegations and failed to allege that an easement over the adjoining property was absolutely necessary for access to the subject property, which fronts on a public street … . GDG Realty, LLC v 149 Glen St. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07978, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

 

REAL PROPERTY LAW (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS  (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/MERGER (REAL PROPERTY LAW, EASEMENTS, EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Second Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Not Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
Participation in Arbitration Precluded Action to Stay Arbitration
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a Student Was Not Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision/Retention of the Employee or Negligent Supervision of the Student on the Part of the School District
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY GRANTED, ELEMENTS OF PRE-AMENDMENT PROOF OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT APPLIED TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (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

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS... DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION...