Dunham v. Elite Development, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunham v. Elite Development, Inc.

55 A.D.3d 782, 865 N.Y.S.2d 562

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 782 (Dunham v. Elite Development, 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

Dunham v. Elite Development, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 782, 865 N.Y.S.2d 562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an easement by prescription over property owned by the defendant, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated October 16, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff does not have an easement by prescription over its property, and to cancel the plaintiffs notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff asserts that she has an easement by prescription over a portion of the defendant’s adjacent property. The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record reveals that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs use was hostile. Specifically, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s use of its driveway was a neighborly accommodation or use by permission (see Lillianfeld v Lichtenstein, 245 AD2d 344 [1997]; Rogers v Holmes, 217 AD2d 609 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Leventhal, 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 that the plaintiff has an easement by prescription over property owned by the defendant, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated October 16, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff does not have an easement by prescription over its property, and to cancel the plaintiffs notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff asserts that she has an easement by prescription over a portion of the defendant’s adjacent property. The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record reveals that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs use was hostile. Specifically, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s use of its driveway was a neighborly accommodation or use by permission (see Lillianfeld v Lichtenstein, 245 AD2d 344 [1997]; Rogers v Holmes, 217 AD2d 609 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 782, 865 N.Y.S.2d 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-elite-development-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack