Carty v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 10 May 2017
• Citation: 55 N.Y.S.3d 108,150 A.D.3d 812
• Parties: Sharon CARTY, et al., appellants, v. Yolander M. GOODWIN, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

150 A.D.3d 812

55 N.Y.S.3d 108

Sharon CARTY, et al., appellants,

v.Yolander M. GOODWIN, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 10, 2017.

Lorna A. McGregor, Bronx, NY, for appellants.

Rosado, Apat & Dudley, LLP, Hicksville, NY (Richard H. Apat of counsel), for respondents.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Catapano–Fox, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated October 9, 2015, as, after a nonjury trial, in effect, determined that the defendants were entitled to a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs do not have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants and directed the dismissal of the cause of action for injunctive relief.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiffs do not have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

An easement by prescription is generally demonstrated by proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period (see Colin Realty Co., LLC v. Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 137 A.D.3d 838, 839, 26 N.Y.S.3d 606 ; 315 Main St. Poughkeepsie, LLC v. WA 319 Main, LLC, 62 A.D.3d 690, 691, 878 N.Y.S.2d 193 ). In general, where an easement has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be open, notorious, continuous, and undisputed, it is presumed that the use was hostile, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the allegedly prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive (see Colin Realty Co., LLC v. Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 137 A.D.3d at 840, 26 N.Y.S.3d 606 ; Duckworth v. Ning Fun Chiu, 33 A.D.3d 583, 583, 822 N.Y.S.2d 147 ).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination, made after a nonjury trial, that they failed to establish with clear and convincing evidence that they used the defendants' property for vehicular access to the rear of their property and that such use was adverse, open and notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period (see Colin Realty Co., LLC v. Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 137 A.D.3d at 839, 26 N.Y.S.3d...