Jonke v. Busse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jonke v. Busse

90 A.D.2d 788

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 788 (Jonke v. Busse) 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

Jonke v. Busse, 90 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from maintaining a driveway over certain lands of the plaintiff, defendants Edward and Mildred J. Busse appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 12, 1981, which was in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. [789]*789Special Term was correct in permanently enjoining the appellants from maintaining a driveway over plaintiff’s land or from crossing over the land for the purpose of direct access to the appellants’ land. However, appellants are entitled to use the easement in question for the limited purpose for which it was given to the Town of Carmel, i.e., a turnaround for vehicles. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from maintaining a driveway over certain lands of the plaintiff, defendants Edward and Mildred J. Busse appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 12, 1981, which was in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. [789]*789Special Term was correct in permanently enjoining the appellants from maintaining a driveway over plaintiff’s land or from crossing over the land for the purpose of direct access to the appellants’ land. However, appellants are entitled to use the easement in question for the limited purpose for which it was given to the Town of Carmel, i.e., a turnaround for vehicles. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonke-v-busse-nyappdiv-1982.