You are here: / / CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT...
,

CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that neither plaintiff nor defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this dispute over an plaintiff’s ingress and egress easement over defendants’ land. The court explained the criteria for interpretation of an express easement and a prescriptive easement. The court noted that plaintiff was properly sanctioned for her counsel’s conduct in filing an amended complaint which differed from the complaint approved by the court:

,,, [T]he plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint, arguing, in effect, that the language of the express easement should be amended to include certain curves in the right of way that were necessary to permit utility and delivery trucks to access the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argued that she had obtained a prescriptive easement over the portions of the defendants’ property which underlaid the proposed curves. The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to an expansion of the easement, by prescription or otherwise. …

“Easements by express grant are construed to give effect to the parties’ intent, as manifested by the language of the grant” … . “The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement”… . “Where, as here, an easement provides for the ingress and egress of motor vehicles, it is granted in general terms and the extent of its use includes any reasonable use necessary and convenient for the purpose for which it is created'” … .

“An easement by prescription may be demonstrated by clear and convincing proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period” … . DiDonato v Dyckman, 2018 NY Slip Op 08113, Second Dept 11-28-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (EASEMENTS, CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPRESS EASEMENTS ( CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS (CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice Suit—Action Time-Barred
CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE; HERE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE “NEW” EVIDENCE.
Criteria for Review of Rulings on Variances Explained
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Whether School-Wrestler’s Risk of Injury Increased by Condition of Wrestling Mats
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION... DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER...