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
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
A DANGEROUS CONDITION, A DOOR WHICH SWUNG CLOSED ABRUPTLY, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF; TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR, THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT EVIDENCE THE DOOR WAS INSPECTED OR MAINTAINED AND FOUND SAFE CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INJURY; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SUCH EVIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
No Allegation Plaintiffs’ “Physical Safety” Was Endangered Re: Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress/No Allegation of Sufficiently Extreme and Outrageous Conduct Re: Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Those Causes of Action Were Therefore Properly Dismissed
INSURER DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS OF THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE, INSURER MUST DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Guilty Plea Forfeits All Ineffective Assistance Claims Except those Relating to Plea Bargain
PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
Petition by Guardian to Transfer Assets of Incapacitated Person Properly Denied

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

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...