Isnady v. Walden Pres., L.P.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021–01542,Index No. 7058/16 |
| Parties | Will ISNADY, appellant, v. WALDEN PRESERVATION, L.P., etc., respondent, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
208 A.D.3d 568
173 N.Y.S.3d 49
Will ISNADY, appellant,
v.
WALDEN PRESERVATION, L.P., etc., respondent, et al., defendants.
2021–01542
Index No. 7058/16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 10, 2022
August 10, 2022
Barry D. Haberman, New City, NY, for appellant.
London Fischer LLP, New York, NY (Brian P. McLaughlin and Myra Needleman of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has certain easements over a portion of certain real property owned by the defendant Walden Preservation, L.P., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of Supreme Court, Orange County (Maria S. Vazquez–Doles, J.), dated February 2, 2021. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated January 20, 2021, inter alia, granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Walden Preservation, L.P., which was for
summary judgment dismissing so much of the amended complaint, insofar as asserted against it, as sought a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an easement of ingress and egress based on adverse possession and a prescriptive easement of ingress and egress over the disputed property, is in favor of that defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing, in effect, that portion of the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing, in effect, so much of the amended complaint, insofar as asserted against the defendant Walden Preservation, L.P., as sought a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an easement of ingress and egress based on adverse possession and a prescriptive easement of ingress and egress over the disputed property, and adding thereto a provision in favor
of the defendant Walden Preservation, L.P., declaring that the plaintiff does not have an easement of ingress and egress based on adverse possession or a prescriptive easement of ingress and egress over the disputed property; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the defendant Walden Preservation, L.P.
The facts relating to this appeal are set forth in greater detail in this Court's decision and order in a related appeal ( Isnady v. Walden Preservation, L.P., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2022 WL 3221768 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2018–00268; decided herewith]). For the purposes of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Achee v. Merrick Vill., Inc.
...his accident. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the proposed amendment to the bill of particulars raised an entirely new theory 173 N.Y.S.3d 49 of liability well after discovery had been completed. Moreover, the proposed amendment was advanced only in response to the defendant's motio......
-
Bolognese v. Bantis
...may arise until [there is an] assertion of a hostile right'" which is made known to the property owner (Isnady v Walden Preserv., L.P., 208 A.D.3d 568, 570, quoting Susquehanna Realty Corp. v Barth, 108 A.D.2d 909, 910; see Hassinger v Kline, 91 A.D.2d 988, 989). Even if the plaintiffs esta......
-
Isnady v. Walden Pres., L.P.
...materials submitted by the municipal defendants in support of their motion to dismiss resolved, as a matter of law, those parties’ 208 A.D.3d 568 dispute as to the causes of action for an easement for parking and for damages for the alleged impermissible taking of such easement, "such that ......
- Aboulissan v. Kingsland 79, LLC