City of Port Jervis v. Har-Tom, Ltd.-III, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Port Jervis v. Har-Tom, Ltd.-III, L. L. C.

287 A.D.2d 590, 731 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 590 (City of Port Jervis v. Har-Tom, Ltd.-III, L. L. C.) 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

City of Port Jervis v. Har-Tom, Ltd.-III, L. L. C., 287 A.D.2d 590, 731 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the existence of an easement over stated portions of the defendant’s real property in favor of the plaintiff for the purpose of accessing and maintaining a water system, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 26, 2000, which after a nonjury trial, inter alia, made the declaration.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found the existence of a common-law dedication which caused the plaintiff to acquire an interest in the defendant’s property, as this determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, McDermott v Town of Goshen, 207 AD2d 612, 615; Zebrowski v Trustees of Town of Brookhaven, 128 AD2d 704; cf., Winston v Village of Scarsdale, 170 [591]*591AD2d 672). The court’s further determination that a 1976 stipulation of settlement between the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiff also created an easement in favor of the plaintiff was likewise supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein 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 the existence of an easement over stated portions of the defendant’s real property in favor of the plaintiff for the purpose of accessing and maintaining a water system, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 26, 2000, which after a nonjury trial, inter alia, made the declaration.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found the existence of a common-law dedication which caused the plaintiff to acquire an interest in the defendant’s property, as this determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, McDermott v Town of Goshen, 207 AD2d 612, 615; Zebrowski v Trustees of Town of Brookhaven, 128 AD2d 704; cf., Winston v Village of Scarsdale, 170 [591]*591AD2d 672). The court’s further determination that a 1976 stipulation of settlement between the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiff also created an easement in favor of the plaintiff was likewise supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 590, 731 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-port-jervis-v-har-tom-ltd-iii-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack