You are here: / / NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951...

NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were not entitled to amend their pleadings to conform to the proof after a nonjury trial in this adverse possession proceeding. Plaintiffs sought adverse possession of portions “paper streets” on both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ (Hart’s) land arguing that any easement had been abandoned and should be extinguished pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1951. The court explained that non-use alone does not constitute abandonment and RPAPL 1951 cannot be used to retroactively extinguish an easement on someone else’s land:

​

Because nonuse, as a matter of law, does not establish intent to abandon, and given that plaintiffs did not allege that the proof showed any other acts that would be cognizable in satisfying the requirement of “unequivocal [acts] . . . clearly demonstrat[ing] the owner[s’] intention to permanently relinquish all rights to [an] easement” … , plaintiffs’ proposed amendment regarding abandonment of any easement is palpably insufficient on its face … . …

​

As the Court of Appeals has made clear, the Legislature intended for RPAPL 1951 (2) to make “available to owners of parcels burdened with outmoded restrictions an economical and efficient means of getting rid of them” … . As the Legislature intended for the provision to allow landowners to seek the extinguishment of restrictions on their property, the provision does not permit plaintiffs to extinguish an easement on Hart’s property. Moreover, the relevant inquiry for RPAPL 1951 focuses on “the time the enforceability of the restriction is brought in question” … . That time frame is a plain indication that any act by a court in extinguishing a restriction would not apply to a time prior to when the enforceability of the restriction was challenged. Therefore, as RPAPL 1951 (2) does not permit plaintiffs to retroactively extinguish an easement on Hart’s property, it is inapplicable to plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim. Ferguson v Hart, 2017 NY Slip Op 04523, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (ADVERSE POSSESSION, EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/ADVERSE POSSESSION (EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)ABANDONMENT (EASEMENTS,  NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/EXTINGUISHMENT (EASEMENTS, RPAPL 1951, ADVERSE POSSESSION, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A GENETIC MARKER TEST WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL THERE WAS NO APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Was Not Prejudiced by Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Notice of the Accident, Claim Allowed
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF VICTIM’S DISCLOSURE TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A PROMPT OUTCRY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Facts Admitted In Guilty Plea Have Subsequently Been Found Insufficient to Constitute the Offense (Possession of Child Pornography)—Yet Vacation of the Conviction Not Warranted
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE A SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION WHICH IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT IN CRIMES CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING... THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF...