Barone v. Guthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barone v. Guthy

295 A.D.2d 460, 744 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 460 (Barone v. Guthy) 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

Barone v. Guthy, 295 A.D.2d 460, 744 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over a disputed portion of driveway, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), entered February 16, 2001, which, inter alia, after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her on the second cause of action, declaring that the plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over the disputed portion of the subject driveway.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a prescriptive easement over the disputed portion of driveway because she presented sufficient evidence to establish that the use by her and her tenants of the portion of the driveway was adverse, open, notorious, continued, and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years (see Coverdale v Zucker, 261 AD2d 429, 430). The defendant failed to offer evidence proving that such use was permissive.

The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness constituted inadmissible hearsay is without merit. The testimony was offered to demonstrate state of mind and not for its truth (see Garsten v MacMurray, 133 AD2d 442). Feuerstein, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over a disputed portion of driveway, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), entered February 16, 2001, which, inter alia, after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her on the second cause of action, declaring that the plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over the disputed portion of the subject driveway.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a prescriptive easement over the disputed portion of driveway because she presented sufficient evidence to establish that the use by her and her tenants of the portion of the driveway was adverse, open, notorious, continued, and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years (see Coverdale v Zucker, 261 AD2d 429, 430). The defendant failed to offer evidence proving that such use was permissive.

The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness constituted inadmissible hearsay is without merit. The testimony was offered to demonstrate state of mind and not for its truth (see Garsten v MacMurray, 133 AD2d 442). Feuerstein, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 460, 744 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barone-v-guthy-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack