Hubert v. Gelmart Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hubert v. Gelmart Industries, Inc.

119 A.D.2d 630, 500 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55558

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 630 (Hubert v. Gelmart Industries, 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

Hubert v. Gelmart Industries, Inc., 119 A.D.2d 630, 500 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to establish an easement by prescription over a strip of land owned by it, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (La Fauci, J.), entered October 19, 1984, [631]*631which, after a nonjury trial, declared the existence of such an easement and directed the defendant not to obstruct the portion of its property burdened by the easement in any way.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Trial Term correctly determined that the plaintiffs acquired an easement by prescription over the defendant’s property. The defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs’ use of the property was not adverse to its interest is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to establish an easement by prescription over a strip of land owned by it, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (La Fauci, J.), entered October 19, 1984, [631]*631which, after a nonjury trial, declared the existence of such an easement and directed the defendant not to obstruct the portion of its property burdened by the easement in any way.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Trial Term correctly determined that the plaintiffs acquired an easement by prescription over the defendant’s property. The defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs’ use of the property was not adverse to its interest is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 630, 500 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-v-gelmart-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1986.