Zaluski v. McCormick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaluski v. McCormick

49 A.D.2d 982, 374 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11299

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 982 (Zaluski v. McCormick) 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

Zaluski v. McCormick, 49 A.D.2d 982, 374 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, entered October 3, 1974 in St. Lawrence County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury. We agree with the decision of the trial court that the prescriptive easement of way sought by plaintiffs was not sufficiently established by the proof in this record. Plaintiffs failed ito demonstrate their use of a definite and certain way over the lands of the defendants to the claimed extent for the prescriptive period or to particularize the width of the vehicles which traveled over it. Moreover, they did not show that their use of this passageway was inconsistent with defendants’ interests or distinct from the use of others who enjoyed its benefits (2 NY Jur, Adverse Possession, §§50, 118, 121). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, entered October 3, 1974 in St. Lawrence County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury. We agree with the decision of the trial court that the prescriptive easement of way sought by plaintiffs was not sufficiently established by the proof in this record. Plaintiffs failed ito demonstrate their use of a definite and certain way over the lands of the defendants to the claimed extent for the prescriptive period or to particularize the width of the vehicles which traveled over it. Moreover, they did not show that their use of this passageway was inconsistent with defendants’ interests or distinct from the use of others who enjoyed its benefits (2 NY Jur, Adverse Possession, §§50, 118, 121). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 982, 374 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaluski-v-mccormick-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack