From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henricksen v. Trails End Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 2000
272 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued March 16, 2000.

May 1, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the extent of an easement over the plaintiffs' property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated February 5, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants Trails End Company, Leonard J. Schreier, William R. Dorrance, Elsa S. Dorrance, Grace P. Rice, Leo H. Epstein, Georgena Epstein, Peter V. Smith, Jr., Catherine S. Freiedman, Marion Caroline, Linda M. Brandt, Florence Bird, John W. Bird, Frances Kissling, Richard Marsh, Virginia Marsh, Menzo J. Brown, Robert Sicherer, Joseph J. Galligan, Joseph F. Mazure, Helen M. Mazure, Anthony J. Woolsey, Denise M. LeBarron, Robert Jones, Robyn Jones, Stephan Bogert, and Andrea Bogert, and the defendants-intervenors Bonnie Nutter, Mark Dorrance, Kenneth Graham, Michele Graham, Fred Gerenser, Lynda Gerenser, and Randolph Griffin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Adam L. Goldberg, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Jacobowitz and Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (Robert E. DiNardo and George Lithco of counsel), for respondents.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

The respondents contend that they are the successors in interest to the grantees of an easement burdening the plaintiffs' property. However, the record does not establish that the real property lots identified in the respondents' deeds are the same lots as those benefitted by the easement, and that the easement remains in existence with respect to each lot. As material issues of fact exist, the respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Henricksen v. Trails End Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 2000
272 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Henricksen v. Trails End Company

Case Details

Full title:Glenn I. Henricksen, Sr., et al., appellants, v. Trails End Company, etc.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Beachside Bungalow v. Oceanview Assoc

We agree. The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by establishing…