Mancini v. Bard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mancini v. Bard

51 A.D.2d 1003, 381 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1003 (Mancini v. Bard) 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

Mancini v. Bard, 51 A.D.2d 1003, 381 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 28, 1975, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs have a right of ingress to and egress from Lots 16B-2 and 16C-1 over Palmer Lane West. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and case remanded to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith. The findings of fact are affirmed. While Special Term properly determined that plaintiffs have an interest in Palmer Lane West, it is a limited interest; Special Term’s conclusion that they have the right to use Palmer Lane West as a means of access to and from Lots 16B-2 and 16C-1 was erroneous. Plaintiffs seek to add to the area serviced by this road parcels which were never part of the Gulesian tract from which the properties of the parties to this action were formed. Since the relief sought is essentially that of creating an easement in property held in common with the other successors in interest of Gulesian, the relief sought should have been denied (see Palmer v Palmer, 150 NY 139, 149; Crippen v Morss, 49 NY 63). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 28, 1975, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs have a right of ingress to and egress from Lots 16B-2 and 16C-1 over Palmer Lane West. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and case remanded to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith. The findings of fact are affirmed. While Special Term properly determined that plaintiffs have an interest in Palmer Lane West, it is a limited interest; Special Term’s conclusion that they have the right to use Palmer Lane West as a means of access to and from Lots 16B-2 and 16C-1 was erroneous. Plaintiffs seek to add to the area serviced by this road parcels which were never part of the Gulesian tract from which the properties of the parties to this action were formed. Since the relief sought is essentially that of creating an easement in property held in common with the other successors in interest of Gulesian, the relief sought should have been denied (see Palmer v Palmer, 150 NY 139, 149; Crippen v Morss, 49 NY 63). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1003, 381 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancini-v-bard-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack