Harbour Point Ass'n v. Oelsner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harbour Point Ass'n v. Oelsner

261 A.D. 962, 25 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8346

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 962 (Harbour Point Ass'n v. Oelsner) 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

Harbour Point Ass'n v. Oelsner, 261 A.D. 962, 25 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s easement in and to roads and drives as delineated on a development map, judgment for defendants unanimously affirmed, without costs. Although the proof was imperfectly presented, there is sufficient in this record from which it appears that the predecessors in interest of defendants acquired title to the bed of the roads which are alleged to have been blocked off, subject only to easements of other lot owners, which deeds were made on or about July 21, 1926, and prior to the conveyance to plaintiff. The subsequent conveyance to plaintiff, therefore, could not create an easement of ingress and egress over the roads unless plaintiff was a lot owner as contemplated in the original deeds. Clearly, the plaintiff has no such status. The properties conveyed to it were not lots, but simply adjuncts or appurtenances which were to be made available to lot owners generally, and its deed specifically excludes lots as property within the conveyance. As owner of such property, therefore, plaintiff has no standing to enforce the easements created in favor of the lot owners. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with or immaterial in the light of the foregoing are reversed, and new findings and conclusions will be made. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ. Settle order on notice.

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

In an action for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s easement in and to roads and drives as delineated on a development map, judgment for defendants unanimously affirmed, without costs. Although the proof was imperfectly presented, there is sufficient in this record from which it appears that the predecessors in interest of defendants acquired title to the bed of the roads which are alleged to have been blocked off, subject only to easements of other lot owners, which deeds were made on or about July 21, 1926, and prior to the conveyance to plaintiff. The subsequent conveyance to plaintiff, therefore, could not create an easement of ingress and egress over the roads unless plaintiff was a lot owner as contemplated in the original deeds. Clearly, the plaintiff has no such status. The properties conveyed to it were not lots, but simply adjuncts or appurtenances which were to be made available to lot owners generally, and its deed specifically excludes lots as property within the conveyance. As owner of such property, therefore, plaintiff has no standing to enforce the easements created in favor of the lot owners. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with or immaterial in the light of the foregoing are reversed, and new findings and conclusions will be made. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 962, 25 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harbour-point-assn-v-oelsner-nyappdiv-1941.