Cohan v. Fleuroma, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohan v. Fleuroma, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 741, 346 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 741 (Cohan v. Fleuroma, Inc.) 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

Cohan v. Fleuroma, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 741, 346 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for trespass, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 1972 and made after a nonjury trial, which dismissed their complaint and declared, upon defendants’ counterclaim, inter alla, that “defendants have permanent easements of light, air and access” upon and over plaintiffs’ property. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "light, air and”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. There is no evidence of any express grant of an easement of light and air to defendants or their predecessors in title; and defendants do not claim otherwise. Since easements of light and air cannot be acquired by prescription in this State (cf. Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. 309; 2 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Basements, § 22.01), it was error to declare that defendants had such easements. In our opinion, the trial court properly declared that defendants have a permanent easement of access upon and over plaintiffs’ property and the right to use it for all lawful street purposes. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Shapiro and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for trespass, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 1972 and made after a nonjury trial, which dismissed their complaint and declared, upon defendants’ counterclaim, inter alla, that “defendants have permanent easements of light, air and access” upon and over plaintiffs’ property. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "light, air and”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. There is no evidence of any express grant of an easement of light and air to defendants or their predecessors in title; and defendants do not claim otherwise. Since easements of light and air cannot be acquired by prescription in this State (cf. Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. 309; 2 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Basements, § 22.01), it was error to declare that defendants had such easements. In our opinion, the trial court properly declared that defendants have a permanent easement of access upon and over plaintiffs’ property and the right to use it for all lawful street purposes. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Shapiro and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 741, 346 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohan-v-fleuroma-inc-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack