Patterson Blacktop Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson Blacktop Corp. v. City of New York

201 A.D.2d 252, 607 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 795

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 252 (Patterson Blacktop Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Patterson Blacktop Corp. v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 252, 607 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 21, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, the owner of land adjacent to that of defendant City, paid fees to the City for many years for a permit giving it the use of an access driveway to a State highway. The State built the highway by virtue of an easement acquired through eminent domain. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that by virtue of the condemnation, the City can no longer require it to obtain a permit.

The IAS Court properly found that the State’s condemnation, which may not be "extended by inference or implication” (Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 255), did not create an easement for plaintiff to cross defendant City’s land, and dismissed the complaint (see, e.g., Bersani Bldg. v State of New York, 21 AD2d 848). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 21, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, the owner of land adjacent to that of defendant City, paid fees to the City for many years for a permit giving it the use of an access driveway to a State highway. The State built the highway by virtue of an easement acquired through eminent domain. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that by virtue of the condemnation, the City can no longer require it to obtain a permit.

The IAS Court properly found that the State’s condemnation, which may not be "extended by inference or implication” (Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 255), did not create an easement for plaintiff to cross defendant City’s land, and dismissed the complaint (see, e.g., Bersani Bldg. v State of New York, 21 AD2d 848). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 252, 607 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-blacktop-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack