Billes v. Eddy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billes v. Eddy

236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 853 (Billes v. Eddy) 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

Billes v. Eddy, 236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s affirmative defenses in this trespass action. Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden by offering evidentiary proof in admissible form that defendant does not have an implied easement based upon existing use (see, Monte v DiMarco, 192 AD2d 1111, lv denied 82 NY2d 653; see generally, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065,1067). Plaintiffs presented no admissible evidence establishing that there was no servitude on the property now owned by plaintiffs in favor of property now owned by defendant prior to severance of title [854]*854in 1929. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s affirmative defenses in this trespass action. Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden by offering evidentiary proof in admissible form that defendant does not have an implied easement based upon existing use (see, Monte v DiMarco, 192 AD2d 1111, lv denied 82 NY2d 653; see generally, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065,1067). Plaintiffs presented no admissible evidence establishing that there was no servitude on the property now owned by plaintiffs in favor of property now owned by defendant prior to severance of title [854]*854in 1929. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billes-v-eddy-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack