You are here: / / OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE...

OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that plaintiffs, who owned property abutting a road, could not prohibit defendants from parking along the road unless plaintiffs’ access to the property was blocked by the defendants:

Supreme Court properly ruled that plaintiffs cannot prevent others from parking their vehicles within the highway easement on the road front property along the shoulder of Route 34, unless those individuals unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs’ right of ingress and egress … . Augusta v Kwortnik, 2018 NY Slip Op 03574, Third Dept. 5-17-18

​REAL PROPERTY (OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING (HIGHWAYS AND ROADS, REAL PROPERTY, OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (PARKING, OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS, RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 COMPELLING THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO HEAR RATE APPEALS WHICH CHALLENGE MEDICAID RATE PAYMENTS; BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANDAMUS RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
Misconduct Serious Enough to Warrant Firing Did Not Disqualify Employee from Receiving Unemployment Benefits
Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized Dispute Resolution Program Is Reviewed Under the Appellate Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers (Not Under the Usual “Substantial Evidence” Standard)
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CURE THE OMISSION OF THE “PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE” REQUIREMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT ANY PROOF ON THE ISSUE; THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROOF SUBMITTED WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ZONING BOARD, EVEN IN AFFIRMING THE BOARD’S DETERMINATION, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE EXPLAINED.

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

NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS... TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE...