Norwick v. Edelman
| Decision Date | 13 November 1953 |
| Citation | 204 Misc. 915 |
| Parties | Anna Norwick, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Morris Edelman et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Benjamin Burrows for plaintiff.
Kenneth Levine for defendants.
This is an action to establish an easement and to compel the removal of a fence erected by the defendants on October 17, 1952, across the path of said easement.
The plaintiff and defendants are the owners of adjoining parcels of real property, each consisting of a two-family dwelling house, with a three-car garage in the rear portion of each house. There is in existence a common driveway easement, of record, between the lateral walls of the respective houses of the parties, measuring approximately seven feet in width and extending on an imaginary line in continuation of each of said lateral walls for a distance of twenty feet beyond the rear of the two buildings. Although this easement of record extends only twenty feet beyond the rear walls of the respective buildings, the distance from the rear of the buildings and the rear boundary line of the properties is about thirty-one feet. While no objection has been directly raised as to the use of these additional eleven feet as a common driveway, the reason is clear. It is apparent that automobiles could not be maneuvered or turned from the record easement or driveway into or out of the garages of either property owner within the given twenty feet dimension and the very purpose in creating the easement would be defeated. The owners thereupon and ever since, by using the entire seven-foot width back to the rear line of their respective properties, extended the driveway easement by practical construction the additional eleven feet in depth. The defendants gave recognition to this by the fact that although they acted in hostility to plaintiff in erecting their pipe railing along the southerly line of the easement, they constructed such railing from the northeasterly corner of their own building to their own rear lot line for the above distance of thirty-one feet. As this evidence came into the record without objection, the pleadings will be deemed amended to conform to such proof.
The plaintiff contends that since July 27, 1923, she and her predecessor in title, as well as the defendants' predecessors in title, had uninterrupted use of so much of each other's rear yards as was necessary to permit an automobile safely to enter the respective garages of the parties after leaving the common driveway easement of record; that this common privilege was an enlargement of the easement of record and was permitted and indulged in without question; that after the defendants acquired title to their property on September 22, 1950, and more particularly on October 17, 1952, the defendants committed an overt act to interrupt the said privilege by erecting a fence, on their own property, so as to prevent an automobile, going in and out of plaintiff's garage, to pass over defendants' back yard to maneuver the same onto and off the common driveway. Plaintiff thereupon brought this action to compel the removal of said fence and to establish her right to go into defendants' back yard which she claims to have acquired by prescription by adverse use.
The record is clear, however, and the plaintiff so testified, that the said use was with the knowledge, consent, approval and agreement of the plaintiff and the defendants' predecessors in title; that there never was any interference with, nor damage or injury to defendants' property and that the erection of the fence by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaconas v. Meyers, 82-555.
...76 U.S.App.D.C. at 396, 133 F.2d at 358 (dicta);10 accord Finley v. Botto, 161 Cal.App.2d 614, 327 P.2d 55 (1958); Norwick v. Edelman, 204 Misc. 915, 128 N.Y.S.2d 312 (1953); Stubblefield v. Osborn, supra; LaRue v. Kosich, supra."11 Arising out of friendship and neighborly accommodation, ap......
-
Merriam v. 352 West 42nd St. Corp.
...554, aff'd 309 N.Y. 978, 132 N.E.2d 894; Offenhartz v. Heinsohn, 30 Misc.2d 693, 150 N.Y.S.2d 78 [Eager, J.]; Norwick v. Edelman, 204 Misc. 915, 917, 128 N.Y.S.2d 312, 314; Berke v. Lang, 202 Misc. 1108, 1110-1112, 115 N.Y.S.2d 83, The period over which the user by the janitress occurred am......
-
Kratter v. Becker
...assumed to be done with neighborly permission. Such a use could not ripen into an easement under the circumstances (Norwich v. Edelman, 204 Misc. 915, 128 N.Y.S.2d 312; Van Overbeek v. Batsleer, Sup., 191 N.Y.S. 49; Berke v. Lang, 202 Misc. 1108, 115 N.Y.S.2d 83). When private houses were b......
-
Jacobs v. Lewicki
...predecessors in title was adverse and under a claim of right (Kopp v. Niemetz, 11 A.D.2d 739, 204 N.Y.S.2d 561; Norwick v. Edelman, 204 Misc. 915, 917, 128 N.Y.S.2d 312, 314, and cases Nor can plaintiffs 'tack' their alleged adverse user of 13 1/2 years onto that of their predecessors in ti......