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
Guilty Plea Precludes Appeal of Statutory Speedy Trial Violation But Not Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation
ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS, THE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS WERE HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE OR DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION OR CAUSE THE CONDITION BY SPECIAL USE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.

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 © 2024 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...