Matzell v. Distaola
| Decision Date | 18 October 1984 |
| Citation | 481 N.Y.S.2d 453,105 A.D.2d 500 |
| Parties | Frank H. MATZELL et al., Appellants, v. Alfred DISTAOLA et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Melvin E. Holm, Fayetteville, for appellants.
John J. Hennigan, Syracuse, for respondents.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendants, entered October 6, 1983 in Madison County, upon a decision of the court at Trial Term, without a jury.
Plaintiffs reside at property they own located on the south side of State Route 5 in the Village of Chittenango, Madison County. Across Route 5 to the north of plaintiffs' property is a large parcel of land, known as Westerly Hills, which was developed in stages with that portion at the easterly edge of the parcel, known as Part 1, having been developed first and that portion between Hills Street and the north line of the tract in the northwesterly corner of the parcel, known as Part 4, having been developed later. Pursuant to an easement granted by one of plaintiffs' predecessors in interest in 1939, an electric line owned by defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation runs from plaintiffs' property across Route 5 in a northerly direction and continues north through Westerly Hills near its eastern boundary. At a point near the northeast corner of Westerly Hills, the electric line turns and runs in a westerly direction.
Prior to 1971, the electric line ran west and crossed Hills Street to a point just south of Hills Street, where the line turned and ran in a northwesterly direction to a point near the northwest corner of Westerly Hills, from where the line continued and passed out of Westerly Hills. In 1971, the line's westerly path was changed such that the line no longer crossed Hills Street, but rather ran in a more direct path along the north line of the Westerly Hills tract from the northeast corner to the northwest corner. This relocation was accomplished by the owners of the properties along the new route granting easements along the path of this more direct route. As part of the consideration for granting these easements, Niagara Mohawk released that portion of the 1939 easement which affected certain enumerated lots "above Tract, Section 4 and other lands south of Hill Street outside of said Tract".
Pursuant to the 1939 easement, Niagara Mohawk has the right to maintain its electric lines and can trim, cut and remove trees, limbs, brush, and other obstructions which are located within 50 feet of either side of the electric line. Thus, in 1982, Niagara Mohawk directed defendant Dumac Forestry Services, Inc. to enter onto plaintiffs' property and remove a tree which was within 50 feet of the line and interfering with it. Plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, especially with regard to cutting trees on the property.
At a trial without a jury, plaintiffs contended that their property is part of the "other lands south of Hill Street outside of said Tract" and, thus, the easement across their property had been released. In support of their position, plaintiffs pointed out that their property is located south of Hills Street, outside of the Westerly Hills tract, and, therefore, the quoted language refers to their property. Defendants argued that the release related only to the area where the line was relocated and, therefore, affected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Salt Co. v. Geostow
...It is well settled that intent must be determined as manifested by the language used in the deed. Matzell v. Distaloa, 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 (3d Dept.1984). Every part of the deed is to be read together and its intent is to be garnered from the whole instrument. Leader v. Le......
-
International Salt Co. v. Geostow
...and is consistent with the applicable rules of law. N.Y. Real Prop. Law Sec. 240(3) (McKinney 1989); Matzell v. Distaola, 105 A.D.2d 500, 501-02, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 (3d Dep't 1984), leave to appeal denied, 64 N.Y.2d 608, 489 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 478 N.E.2d 209 (1985); Allen v. Cross, 64 A.D.2d......
-
Wilson v. Bodian
...the rule regardless of the form which the record takes" (5 Benders, New York Evidence, § 372.04, at 225; see, e.g., Matzell v. Distaola, 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 608, 489 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 478 N.E.2d 209 [in which a map was properly admitted as a business record] ......
-
U.S. Cablevision Corp. v. Theodoreu
...Valley View Gardens of Monsey, N.Y., Section II v. Valley View Gardens, 188 A.D.2d 804, 806, 591 N.Y.S.2d 567; Matzell v. Distaola, 105 A.D.2d 500, 501-502, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 608, 489 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 478 N.E.2d Nor are we persuaded that plaintiff is entitled to an easeme......
-
Table of cases
...793 N.Y.S.2d 857 (4th Dept.2005), § 17:80 Matthews v. Vlad Restoration Ltd., 74 A.D.3d 692 (1st Dept. 2010), § 10:10 Matzell v. Distaola, 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453 (3d Dept. 1984), § 13:90 Mauro v. Freeport, 113 A.D.2d 876, 493 N.Y.S.2d 797 (2d Dept. 1985), § 1:270 Mayes v. Zawolik, ......
-
Demonstrative evidence
...and should have been admitted on the issue of the economic feasibility of a development. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Matzell v. Distaola , 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453 (3d Dept. 1984). he plaintif could not complain about a map admitted in evidence under the business record exception where r......
-
Demonstrative evidence
...and should have been admitted on the issue of the economic feasibility of a development. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Matzell v. Distaola , 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453 (3d Dept. 1984). The plaintiff could not complain about a map admitted in evidence under the business record exception where......
-
Demonstrative evidence
...was improperly excluded and should have been admitted on the issue of the economic feasibility of a development. Matzell v. Distaola , 105 A.D.2d 500, 481 N.Y.S.2d 453 (3d Dept. 1984). he plaintif could not complain about a map admitted in evidence under the business record exception where ......