You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement...

Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement in Safe Condition/Easement Used for Servient-Estate-Owner’s Own Purposes

The Second Department explained when the owner of a servient estate has a duty to maintain an easement in a safe condition:

While an easement generally imposes no affirmative duty on the owner of the servient estate to maintain and repair structures …, such an owner may be required to perform maintenance functions where it makes use of the easement for its own purposes and that use does not interfere with the legitimate activities of the holder of the dominant estate … . Under those circumstances, the owner of the servient estate may retain its duty as a landowner to maintain the portion of its premises that is subject to the easement in a reasonably safe condition, provided that such maintenance subjects the owner of the servient estate to no unusual hazards and requires no special expertise … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since their submissions revealed the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they have used the portion of the property that is subject to the easements for their own purposes by creating and maintaining a private, for-profit parking lot upon that portion of the property. Kleyner v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01584, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

You might also like
THE SELLER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE AN OPTION IN THE RESTRICTED REMEDIES CLAUSE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE BUYER NEVER DEMANDED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).
ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE ASSUMED THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND ELICITED CRUCIAL IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO THE TOWN FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE AND GATE WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER; PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION THE NOTICE ARRIVED FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS MAILED; THEREFORE PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Procedure for Determining a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss a Declaratory Judgment Action Explained

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

Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights L... Family Court Improperly Conditioned Future Visitation Upon Enrollment in a Drug...