Glennon v. Mayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glennon v. Mayo

174 A.D.2d 599, 572 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9167

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

DecidedJune 10, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 599 (Glennon v. Mayo) 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

Glennon v. Mayo, 174 A.D.2d 599, 572 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to establish, inter alia, an easement by prescription and to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a private roadway which runs across the defendants’ property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered June 26, 1990, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment in their favor upon their second cause of action.

[600]*600Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that questions of fact exist with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims of an implied easement by dedication or, in the alternative, by necessity (see generally, Tarolli v Westvale Genessee, 6 NY2d 32; Carlo v Lushia, 144 AD2d 211). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for partial summary judgment upon the second cause of action asserted in the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to establish, inter alia, an easement by prescription and to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of a private roadway which runs across the defendants’ property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered June 26, 1990, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment in their favor upon their second cause of action.

[600]*600Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that questions of fact exist with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims of an implied easement by dedication or, in the alternative, by necessity (see generally, Tarolli v Westvale Genessee, 6 NY2d 32; Carlo v Lushia, 144 AD2d 211). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for partial summary judgment upon the second cause of action asserted in the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 599, 572 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glennon-v-mayo-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack