Misak v. Rotondi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Misak v. Rotondi

1 A.D.2d 413, 766 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 413 (Misak v. Rotondi) 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

Misak v. Rotondi, 1 A.D.2d 413, 766 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over a driveway located on the defendants’ property, the defendants appeal from a judg[414]*414ment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winiek, J.), entered May 6, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over the subject driveway.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement over the driveway located on the defendants’ property. The plaintiffs established, by clear and convincing evidence, that their use of the driveway was adverse, open, notorious, continued, and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years (see Barone v Guthy, 295 AD2d 460 [2002]; Coverdale v Zucker, 261 AD2d 429, 430 [1999]; Casey v Bazan, 253 AD2d 838 [1998]; Reinwald v Accardi, 201 AD2d 476 [1994]; see also CPLR 212 [a]; RPAPL 311). The defendants failed to rebut this showing with evidence that such use was permissive.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, 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 a driveway located on the defendants’ property, the defendants appeal from a judg[414]*414ment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winiek, J.), entered May 6, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over the subject driveway.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement over the driveway located on the defendants’ property. The plaintiffs established, by clear and convincing evidence, that their use of the driveway was adverse, open, notorious, continued, and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years (see Barone v Guthy, 295 AD2d 460 [2002]; Coverdale v Zucker, 261 AD2d 429, 430 [1999]; Casey v Bazan, 253 AD2d 838 [1998]; Reinwald v Accardi, 201 AD2d 476 [1994]; see also CPLR 212 [a]; RPAPL 311). The defendants failed to rebut this showing with evidence that such use was permissive.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 413, 766 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misak-v-rotondi-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack