Old Town Tree Farm, Inc. v. Long Island Power Authority

Majority

p. 692

Old Town Tree Farm, Inc., Respondent, v Long Island Power Authority et al., Appellants.

[955 NYS2d 170]

A party claiming entitlement to an easement by prescription must demonstrate the adverse, open and notorious, and continuous use of the subject property for the prescriptive period (see Vitiello v Merwin, 87 AD3d 632 , 633 [2011]; Manouselis v Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 AD3d 801 [2011]). “Absolute necessity in fact is the standard for a finding of an easement by necessity” (Mic halski v Decker, 16 AD3d 469 , 470 [2005]; see Town of Pound Ridge v Golenbock, 264 AD2d 773 , 774 [1999]; Van Schaack v Torsoe, 161 AD2d 701 , 703 [1990]; McQuinn v Tantalo, 41 AD2d 575 [1973]).

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by conclusively negating any one of the elements of an easement by prescription which, if proven at trial, would warrant the recognition of an easement by prescription (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 , 853 [1985]; Manouselis v Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 AD3d 801 [2011]; Mee Wah Chan v Y & Dev. Corp., 82 AD3d 942 , 943 [2011]; Bova v Vinciguerra, 184 AD2d 934 , 934-

p. 693

935 [1992]; cf. Charlebois v Lobe-A Prop. Owners, 193 AD2d 916 , 917 [1993]). The defendants also failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by conclusively negating any one of the elements of an easement by necessity which, if proven at trial, would warrant the recognition of such an easement (cf. Almeida v Wells, 74 AD3d 1256 , 1259 [2010]; Astwood v Bachinsky, 186 AD2d 949 , 950 [1992]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853 ; Starkey v Curry, 94 AD3d 866 , 867 [2012]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Vitiello v. Merwin 87 AD3d 632 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-08-16 at 633 p. 692
Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC 83 AD3d 801 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-04-12 p. 692
Michalski v. Decker 16 AD3d 469 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-03-14 at 470 p. 692
Town of Pound Ridge v. Golenbock 264 AD2d 773 N.Y. App. Div. 1999-09-20 at 774 p. 692
Van Schaack v. Torsos 161 AD2d 701 N.Y. App. Div. 1990-05-21 at 703 p. 692
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 N.Y. 1985-02-12 at 853 p. 692
Mee Wah Chan v. Y & Development Corp. 82 AD3d 942 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-03-15 at 943 p. 692
Bova v. Vinciguerra 184 AD2d 934 N.Y. App. Div. 1992-06-18 at 934 p. 692
Charlebois v. Lobe-A Property Owners, Inc. 193 AD2d 916 N.Y. App. Div. 1993-05-13 at 917 p. 693
Almeida v. Wells 74 AD3d 1256 N.Y. App. Div. 2010-06-29 at 1259 p. 693
Astwood v. Bachinsky 186 AD2d 949 N.Y. App. Div. 1992-10-29 at 950 p. 693
Starkey v. Curry 94 AD3d 866 N.Y. App. Div. 2012-04-10 at 867 p. 693