You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S GARAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment finding an easement by implication for a driveway leading to a garage on plaintiff’s property. The lot with the driveway, Lot B, and plaintiff’s lot, Lot A, were previously owned by the same party who conveyed Lot A to plaintiff and Lot B to defendant, plaintiff’s sister-in-law:

“An easement may be implied from pre-existing use upon severance of title when three elements are shown: ‘(1) unity and subsequent separation of title, (2) the claimed easement must have, prior to separation, been so long continued and obvious or manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent, and (3) the use must be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land retained'” … . “Stated another way, an implied easement will arise upon severance of ownership when, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude at the time of severance is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate” … . An implied easement must be “a reasonable necessity, rather than a mere convenience” … .

… The plaintiff did not establish that the use of the driveway on Lot B was a reasonable necessity to the beneficial use of the land and not a mere convenience. It is undisputed that Lot A is not landlocked and that the plaintiff can access Lot A without using the driveway on Lot B. … [T]he home situated on Lot A is rented to one set of tenants, and the parking spaces in the garage are rented to another set of tenants. Since access to off-street parking is a mere convenience, the plaintiff cannot establish that the easement is a reasonable necessity. Bonadio v Bonadio, 2021 NY Slip Op 06830, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES TO EQUALLY SHARE THE COSTS OF FATHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT EVALUATING THE PARTIES’ FINANCES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER VIOLATED THE RECKLESS-DISREGARD-FOR-THE-SAFETY-OF-OTHERS STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE VEHICLES IN PURSUIT (SECOND DEPT).
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE/MAILING REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS, THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem
FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE FINDING FATHER DERIVATIVELY ABUSED TWO OTHER CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS AN INFANT AND THE OTHER HAD NOT BEEN BORN AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE OF HANNAH D (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

A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S...