O'Shea v. Freiberg
This text of 279 A.D. 760 (O'Shea v. Freiberg) 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.
Opinion
The circumstances disclose that the user in its inception (or many years later) was not hostile, to the understanding of either or both parties, or made known to be hostile and therefore it was presumptively permissive through acquiescence of respondents and their predecessors. It was only recently asserted to be hostile and then for a period insufficient to ripen [761]*761into an easement by prescription. (Moore v. Day, 199 App. Div. 76, 86, affd. 235 N. Y. 554.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur in result, on the ground that the record does not establish the easement alleged in the complaint. [See post, p. 800.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 A.D. 760, 108 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oshea-v-freiberg-nyappdiv-1951.