Mehl v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mehl v. Roberts

86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15314

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 749 (Mehl v. Roberts) 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

Mehl v. Roberts, 86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term improperly granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment imposing a prescriptive easement for driveway use on a narrow strip of defendants’ property. The record presents triable issues of fact including whether the use by plaintiffs was “continuous and uninterrupted” (Panzica v Galasso, 285 App Div 859, 860, affd 309 NY 978) for the prescribed period (see Arrow Bldrs. Supply Corp. v Royal Nat. Bank of N. Y., 21 NY2d 428, 431; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — prescriptive easement — summary judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Den-man and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term improperly granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment imposing a prescriptive easement for driveway use on a narrow strip of defendants’ property. The record presents triable issues of fact including whether the use by plaintiffs was “continuous and uninterrupted” (Panzica v Galasso, 285 App Div 859, 860, affd 309 NY 978) for the prescribed period (see Arrow Bldrs. Supply Corp. v Royal Nat. Bank of N. Y., 21 NY2d 428, 431; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — prescriptive easement — summary judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Den-man and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehl-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack