You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT,...

QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ (Schwengbers’) motion for summary judgment in this prescriptive easement case should not have been granted. The action concerned a shared driveway and a question of fact was raised whether plaintiffs’ use of the driveway was “hostile:”

“A party claiming a prescriptive easement must show . . . that the use of the easement was open, notorious, hostile and continuous for a period of 10 years” … . Hostility is the only element contested here. Once the other elements of a prescriptive easement are established, “hostility is generally presumed, thus shifting the burden to the defendant to demonstrate that the use was permissive” … . However, permission can be inferred when “the relationship between the parties is one of neighborly cooperation and accommodation,” in which case no presumption of hostility will arise … . Moreover, “where permission can be implied from the beginning, no adverse use may arise until the owner of the servient tenement is made aware of the assertion of a hostile right” … . “Generally, the question of implied permission is one for the factfinder to resolve” … . …

… Schwengber … made assertions regarding her cordial and cooperative relationship — specifically relative to the driveway — with her neighbors who owned defendant’s parcel from 1974 to 2011. These assertions could be read to infer that plaintiffs had implied permission to use the driveway. Inasmuch as Schwengber’s affidavit contained assertions that supported inferences of both hostility and permissive use, plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on their summary judgment motion. Even if plaintiffs had met their burden, defendant submitted evidence indicating that his immediate predecessor-in-interest had an amicable and neighborly arrangement with plaintiffs. Schwengber v Hultenius, 2018 NY Slip Op 02379, Third Dept 4-5-18

​REAL PROPERTY LAW (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EASEMENTS (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS (QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/HOSTILITY (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S INADEQUATE RESPONSE, CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).
CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).
Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (Caused by the Failure of a Scaffolding Plank)—Therefore Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) Claim
INJURY CAUSED BY THE INHALATION OF ASPERGILLUS FUNGUS PROPERLY DEEMED A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENTAL INJURY ENTITLING CLAIMANT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD 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

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO...