You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS HOSTILE AND CONTINUOUS FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this prescriptive easement action should not have been granted. A fire escape on plaintiff’s building hovers over a portion of defendant’s land, which had been used as parking lot. The defendant argued the encroachment by the fire escape was permissive, not hostile, because the fire escape did not interfere with the use of the parking lot. The Second Department held that was question of fact whether a prescriptive easement had been created before the alleged permissive use:

The defendant, in moving, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff does not have a prescriptive easement, established, prima facie, that the fire escape on the rear of plaintiff’s building that encroaches several feet above the defendant’s property was not hostile, but permissive … . Specifically, the defendant submitted evidence that the fire escape did not interfere with the operation of a parking lot on its property from June 1, 1991, to October 15, 2014. In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the use of the subject fire escape, which hovers over a portion of the defendant’s property, has been adverse, open and notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period … . The plaintiff asserted that the subject fire escape has been in place since at least 1902, and that the period of prescription could have been satisfied and the easement created by the time of the alleged permissive use … . Barrett v A&P Pac. Owner, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00396, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

You might also like
THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Observing a “Bulge” Did Not Justify Forcible Detention
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Modification of Existing Visitation Arrangement
Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)
DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE DEFENDANT THE WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD HE GO TO TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
PRIVATE CONTRACT DISPUTES, UNIQUE TO THE PARTIES, ARE NOT COVERED BY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 OR 35O WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO CONSUMER-ORIENTED CONDUCT (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

IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY... PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING...