Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein

245 A.D.2d 344, 665 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 344 (Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein) 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

Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein, 245 A.D.2d 344, 665 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs assert that they have an easement by prescription over a portion of the defendants’ adjacent property. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether their use was hostile to that of the former owners during the prescriptive period (see, Van Deusen v McManus, 202 AD2d 731; 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri, 188 AD2d 524, 525; Boumis v Caetano, 140 AD2d 401, 402).

The defendants’ remaining arguments lack merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs assert that they have an easement by prescription over a portion of the defendants’ adjacent property. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether their use was hostile to that of the former owners during the prescriptive period (see, Van Deusen v McManus, 202 AD2d 731; 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri, 188 AD2d 524, 525; Boumis v Caetano, 140 AD2d 401, 402).

The defendants’ remaining arguments lack merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 344, 665 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lillianfeld-v-lichtenstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack