Attia v. Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Attia v. Greenberg

53 A.D.2d 599, 384 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13259

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 599 (Attia v. Greenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Attia v. Greenberg, 53 A.D.2d 599, 384 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to declare that plaintiff has an easement over certain property for the ingress and egress of automobiles, (1) defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 25, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared that plaintiff has such an easement and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the said judgment as failed to direct defendants to remove a curb or obstruction which allegedly interferes with the easement. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our view, on the record, an easement in favor of plaintiff exists. The use of the strip in question by plaintiff and her predecessor was open, continuous, notorious and uninterrupted for more than the required number of years. No showing of an obstruction to the easement has been made. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action inter alia to declare that plaintiff has an easement over certain property for the ingress and egress of automobiles, (1) defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 25, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared that plaintiff has such an easement and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the said judgment as failed to direct defendants to remove a curb or obstruction which allegedly interferes with the easement. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our view, on the record, an easement in favor of plaintiff exists. The use of the strip in question by plaintiff and her predecessor was open, continuous, notorious and uninterrupted for more than the required number of years. No showing of an obstruction to the easement has been made. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 599, 384 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attia-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack