Ciano v. Smolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciano v. Smolan

225 A.D.2d 727, 640 N.Y.2d 195, 640 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3110

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 727 (Ciano v. Smolan) 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

Ciano v. Smolan, 225 A.D.2d 727, 640 N.Y.2d 195, 640 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The extent of an easement that is claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant (see, Mandia v King Lbr. & Plywood Co., 179 AD2d 150; Phillips v Jacobsen, 117 AD2d 785). The facts of this case support the trial court’s determination that the grant gives the defendants a right-of-way easement over a driveway located, in part, on the plaintiffs’ property which includes the courtyard located between the parties’ residences. Additionally, the trial court correctly determined that the grant does not exclude those vehicles which visit the defendants’ property in connection with the photography studio located there. Such vehicles fall within the category of "service cars,” which the grant expressly includes.

However, the trial court erred by finding that the defendants have a prescriptive easement. When, as here, other title to the easement can be shown, no right to prescription can arise (see, Matter of Scott, 200 App Div 599, affd 234 NY 539).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions lack merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

The extent of an easement that is claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant (see, Mandia v King Lbr. & Plywood Co., 179 AD2d 150; Phillips v Jacobsen, 117 AD2d 785). The facts of this case support the trial court’s determination that the grant gives the defendants a right-of-way easement over a driveway located, in part, on the plaintiffs’ property which includes the courtyard located between the parties’ residences. Additionally, the trial court correctly determined that the grant does not exclude those vehicles which visit the defendants’ property in connection with the photography studio located there. Such vehicles fall within the category of "service cars,” which the grant expressly includes.

However, the trial court erred by finding that the defendants have a prescriptive easement. When, as here, other title to the easement can be shown, no right to prescription can arise (see, Matter of Scott, 200 App Div 599, affd 234 NY 539).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions lack merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 727, 640 N.Y.2d 195, 640 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciano-v-smolan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack