Pallone v. New York Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 34 A.D.2d 1091,312 N.Y.S.2d 660 |
| Parties | Pat PALLONE and Tony Mancuso, Respondents, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant. Appeal |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Vincent A. O'Neil, Syracuse, for appellant.
Lowery & Mancuso, Tony Mancuso, Syracuse, for respondents.
Before DEL VECCHIO, J.P., and MARSH, GABRIELLI, MOULE, and BASTOW, JJ.
The defendant had unrecorded easements to place poles on certain property. The easements were in existence and poles were placed in plain view on the property prior to 1957, in which year it was purchased by the plaintiffs. They attempted upon the trial to prove that in 1965 or 1966 the defendant relocated the poles that were in the highway right of way and placed them inside their property line. Although the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the poles were relocated by the defendant, it held that the easements relied upon by the defendant were mere licenses or easements in gross that were extinguished when the real property was conveyed out of the grantor of the easement. This was error. If there had been no actual or constructive notice, the defendant's rights under the unrecorded easements would have been extinguished by reason of Real Property Law Section 291. However, where there is open and visible use of property by a third person, a purchaser is placed on constructive notice of the possible existence of prior rights. (Phelan v. Brady, 119 N.Y. 587, 591, 23 N.E. 1109, 1110; Williamson v. Brown, 15 N.Y. 354; Lubelle v. Rochester Gas and Electric, 21 A.D.2d 369, 250 N.Y.S.2d 844; and Sanzone v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 47 Misc.2d 237, 262 N.Y.S.2d 138, affd. 27 A.D.2d 646, 277 N.Y.S.2d 125.)
Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts with costs and complaint dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Euro-Swiss Intern. Corp.
...existence of prior rights. See 487 Elmwood, Inc. v. Hassett, 83 A.D.2d 409, 445 N.Y.S.2d 336 (1981); Pallone v. New York Telephone Co., 34 A.D.2d 1091, 321 N.Y.S.2d 660 (4th Dept. 1970) aff'd 30 N.Y.2d 865, 335 N.Y.S.2d 300, 286 N.E.2d 735 (1972); Sanzone v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 47 M......
-
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
...to put her to inquiry and charge her with constructive notice of the agreement that inquiry would have revealed (Pallone v. New York Tele. Co., 34 A.D.2d 1091, 312 N.Y.S.2d 672, affd. 30 N.Y.2d 865, 335 N.Y.S.2d 300, 286 N.E.2d 735; Historic Estates v. United Paper Bd. Co., 260 App.Div. 344......
-
Chase v. Scalici
...N.Y.S.2d 187, 454 N.E.2d 527; Miskiewicz v. Hartley Rest. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 963, 460 N.Y.S.2d 523, 447 N.E.2d 71; Pallone v. New York Tel. Co., 34 A.D.2d 1091, 312 N.Y.S.2d 672 [Appeal No. 2] ). Pennsylvania's statutory and regulatory provisions, on which, as noted, the New York scheme is pa......
-
Duresa v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
...his property, and he had visually observed other gas-related objects as well as marker lines on his property); Pallone v. New York Telephone Co., 34 A.D.2d 1091, 1091,. 312 N.Y.S.2d 660, 660 (1970) (an unrecorded easement to place poles on the plaintiffs' property was valid as against the p......