Mehl v. Roberts — 86 A.D.2d 749

Majority

p. 749

Ronald T. Mehl et al., Respondents, v Richard Roberts et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term improperly granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment imposing a prescriptive easement for driveway use on a narrow strip of defendants’ property. The record presents triable issues of fact including whether the use by plaintiffs was “continuous and uninterrupted” (Panzica v Galasso, 285 App Div 859 , 860, affd 309 NY 978 ) for the prescribed period (see Arrow Bldrs. Supply Corp. v Royal Nat. Bank of N. Y., 21 NY2d 428 , 431; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 , 404). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — prescriptive easement — summary judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Den-man and Schnepp, JJ.

Cases cited

Panzica v. Galasso 309 NY 978 N.Y. 1956-02-09 p. 749
Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Royal National Bank of New York 21 NY2d 428 N.Y. 1968-02-22 at 431 p. 749
Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. 3 NY2d 395 N.Y. 1957-07-03 at 404 p. 749