You are here: / / BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO...
, ,

BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE USE FOR THE REQUIRED TEN YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; HOWEVER BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE WAS PERMISSIVE AND CONTINUED FOR 50 YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY ESTOPPEL WERE MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendants’ properties, but did have an easement by estoppel. Because there was an agreement among the original owners of the three adjacent camps to construct, maintain and use a roadway providing vehicular access to all three camps, and because there had been no hostile use of the roadway for ten years, the requirements for a prescriptive easement were not met. However plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by estoppel. The court noted that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to an easement by estoppel:

[Re; a prescriptive easement] … [B]ecause plaintiffs’ predecessors’ use of the extension was permissive, the element of hostility was negated … . Therefore, no adverse use could have arisen until there was the assertion of a hostile right … , which, at the earliest, occurred in 2018. We are presented with a permissive use that did not ripen into a prescriptive one for the time required … .

Yet, these same facts establish plaintiffs’ entitlement to an easement by estoppel … . “An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner’s representation that an easement exists” … . The uncontested existence of the agreement between the parties’ predecessors for the construction and use of the extension, together with the time and expense of not only the initial construction but, also, the continued 50-year maintenance thereof, demonstrates that plaintiffs “undertook . . . action[s] to their detriment in reasonable reliance upon a representation that they held an easement” … . Sardino v Scholet Family Irrevocable Trust, 2025 NY Slip Op 02828, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear illustrations of the criteria for a prescriptive easement and an easement by estoppel.

 

You might also like
DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING.
Motor-Route Newspaper Carriers Were Employees, Not Independent Contractors
SNOWPLOW DRIVER WAS EXEMPT FROM STANDARD NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT ACT RECKLESSLY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER (LCSW) CONSTITUTED COMPETENT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF SUFFERS FROM POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD), PTSD IS A ‘SERIOUS INJURY’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102 (THIRD DEPT).
Questions of Fact Whether Picnic Table Near the Edge of a Porch Was a Dangerous Condition and Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious
Contract-Based Duty Owed to Non-Party Explained
Because the Statute Relied Upon by the State Police to Deny a FOIL Request Did Not Pertain to the Sought Documents, the Request Should Have Been Granted/Court Cannot Substitute Another Ground for Denial

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

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL BASED UPON COUNSEL’S...