Getz v. Harvey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Getz v. Harvey

289 A.D.2d 526, 736 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13028

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 526 (Getz v. Harvey) 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

Getz v. Harvey, 289 A.D.2d 526, 736 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injunctive and declaratory relief relating to an easement, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered May 16, 2000, which, after a non-jury trial, declared, inter alia, that the defendants had not encroached on the plaintiffs’ easement of access, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the easement in question was intended to afford a right of egress and ingress only, and that the plaintiffs’ right of egress and ingress is fully protected by limiting the physical scope of the easement to the paved highway which runs eastward from East Shore Road toward Manhasset Bay. “[T]he plaintiffs failed to establish that the [paved] roadway was inadequate for the * * * purpose intended by the grantee in creating the easement” (Minogue v Kaufman, 124 AD2d 791, 792; Dalton v Levy, 258 NY 161; Grafton v Moir, 130 NY 465, 470-471; Fairfield Props. v Pepe, 56 AD2d 883; see also, Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d 443; Serbalik v Gray, 268 AD2d 926). Bracken, P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for injunctive and declaratory relief relating to an easement, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered May 16, 2000, which, after a non-jury trial, declared, inter alia, that the defendants had not encroached on the plaintiffs’ easement of access, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the easement in question was intended to afford a right of egress and ingress only, and that the plaintiffs’ right of egress and ingress is fully protected by limiting the physical scope of the easement to the paved highway which runs eastward from East Shore Road toward Manhasset Bay. “[T]he plaintiffs failed to establish that the [paved] roadway was inadequate for the * * * purpose intended by the grantee in creating the easement” (Minogue v Kaufman, 124 AD2d 791, 792; Dalton v Levy, 258 NY 161; Grafton v Moir, 130 NY 465, 470-471; Fairfield Props. v Pepe, 56 AD2d 883; see also, Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d 443; Serbalik v Gray, 268 AD2d 926). Bracken, P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 526, 736 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getz-v-harvey-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack