DeCesare v. Feldmeier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeCesare v. Feldmeier

184 A.D.2d 220, 584 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7595

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

DecidedJune 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 220 (DeCesare v. Feldmeier) 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

DeCesare v. Feldmeier, 184 A.D.2d 220, 584 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered September 23, 1991, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs do not have a twenty-foot easement over the subject property, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An easement, regardless of how created, may be extinguished by abandonment (Rogers v Germano, 300 NY 251; Stillman v City of Olean, 228 NY 322), the question of aban[221]*221donment generally being an issue of fact (see, Gerbig v Zumpano, 7 NY2d 327). There is no reason in this case to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. The easement in question was for many years prior to plaintiffs’ acquiring title blocked at one end by the use of a garden, and, indeed, plaintiffs’ own title survey noted specifically that it apparently was not in use. Accordingly, plaintiffs were on notice that the twenty-foot easement was of questionable validity, notwithstanding a declaration of easement filed prior to their acquiring the property and the recitation of the easement in their deed. It is also pertinent that plaintiffs have ingress and egress to the main street via another easement. We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions, as well as those of defendants-cross-appellants, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

Resettled judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered September 23, 1991, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs do not have a twenty-foot easement over the subject property, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An easement, regardless of how created, may be extinguished by abandonment (Rogers v Germano, 300 NY 251; Stillman v City of Olean, 228 NY 322), the question of aban[221]*221donment generally being an issue of fact (see, Gerbig v Zumpano, 7 NY2d 327). There is no reason in this case to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. The easement in question was for many years prior to plaintiffs’ acquiring title blocked at one end by the use of a garden, and, indeed, plaintiffs’ own title survey noted specifically that it apparently was not in use. Accordingly, plaintiffs were on notice that the twenty-foot easement was of questionable validity, notwithstanding a declaration of easement filed prior to their acquiring the property and the recitation of the easement in their deed. It is also pertinent that plaintiffs have ingress and egress to the main street via another easement. We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions, as well as those of defendants-cross-appellants, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 220, 584 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decesare-v-feldmeier-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack