Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC
Decision Date | 12 April 2011 |
Citation | 83 A.D.3d 801,920 N.Y.S.2d 683,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03039 |
Parties | Spiros MANOUSELIS, et al., appellants, v. WOODWORTH REALTY, LLC, et al., respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Maniatis Dimopoulos & Lombardi LLP, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Constantine G. Dimopoulos of counsel), for appellants.
Novick & Kaner, P.C., New Rochelle, N.Y. (Morton Kaner of counsel), for respondents.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over a portion of the defendants' property, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated May 25, 2010, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendants and against them, declared that they do not have a prescriptive easement over the defendants' property.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
( J.C. Tarr, Q.P.R.T. v. Delsener, 19 A.D.3d 548, 550, 800 N.Y.S.2d 177 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eskenazi v. Sloat, 40 A.D.3d 577, 578, 834 N.Y.S.2d 330;Duckworth v. Ning Fun Chiu, 33 A.D.3d 583, 584, 822 N.Y.S.2d 147;Frumkin v. Chemtop, 251 A.D.2d 449, 674 N.Y.S.2d 409).
Here, there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences” which could lead a rational jury to conclude, as did the jury here, that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they have a prescriptive easement over the defendants' property ( Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;see Eskenazi v. Sloat, 40 A.D.3d at 578, 834 N.Y.S.2d 330;*684Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd., 18 A.D.3d 702, 702–703, 795 N.Y.S.2d 742). In this case, the public's use of the subject property rendered the presumption of hostility inapplicable ( see Burcon Props. v. Dalto, 155 A.D.2d 501, 547 N.Y.S.2d 362;Susquehanna Realty Corp. v. Barth, 108 A.D.2d 909, 485 N.Y.S.2d 795). Moreover, we cannot say, upon the exercise of our factual review power, that the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiffs that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Old Town Tree Farm, Inc. v. Long Island Power Auth.
...property for the prescriptive period ( see Vitiello v. Merwin, 87 A.D.3d 632, 633, 928 N.Y.S.2d 581;Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683). “Absolute necessity in fact is the standard [955 N.Y.S.2d 171]for a finding of an easement by necessity” ( Michalski v. ......
-
Colin Realty Co. v. Manhasset Pizza, LLC
...945 N.Y.S.2d 196, 968 N.E.2d 433, quoting Pirman v. Confer, 273 N.Y. 357, 363, 7 N.E.2d 262 ; see Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683 ). Here, while, as the Supreme Court found, it appears undisputed that the defendants' traversing of Colin Realty's lot was ......
-
Garden Homes Mobile Home Park Co. v. Patel
...property for the prescriptive period ( see Vitiello v. Merwin, 87 A.D.3d 632, 633, 928 N.Y.S.2d 581;Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683), which is 10 years ( see 315 Main St. Poughkeepsie, LLC v. WA 319 Main, LLC, 62 A.D.3d 690, 691, 878 N.Y.S.2d 193). “ ‘[T......
-
Harris v. Stoelzel
...evidence” ( Martinez v. Wascom, 57 A.D.3d 1415, 1416, 871 N.Y.S.2d 549 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683;see generally Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163). It is hereby ......