Sterrer v. Calestine

New York Court of Appeals

Sterrer v. Calestine

443 N.E.2d 952, 57 N.Y.2d 1030, 457 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3860

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 11, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 443 N.E.2d 952 (Sterrer v. Calestine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sterrer v. Calestine, 443 N.E.2d 952, 57 N.Y.2d 1030, 457 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3860 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s argument that the earlier action dealt with an implied easement over the surface of the lots rather than an express reservation with respect to sewers and repairs may have been a valid basis for appeal of the prior judgment which held defendants’ title absolute and unencumbered and declared plaintiff barred from all claim to an easement in the land. Not having appealed that judgment, however, plaintiff is barred by it from maintaining the present action for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

[1033]*1033On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s argument that the earlier action dealt with an implied easement over the surface of the lots rather than an express reservation with respect to sewers and repairs may have been a valid basis for appeal of the prior judgment which held defendants’ title absolute and unencumbered and declared plaintiff barred from all claim to an easement in the land. Not having appealed that judgment, however, plaintiff is barred by it from maintaining the present action for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

[1033]*1033On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 N.E.2d 952, 57 N.Y.2d 1030, 457 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterrer-v-calestine-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack