Legal Opinion

Mehl v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 22, 1982Published

1Opinion of the Court

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…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Royal National Bank of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Panzica v. GalassoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  4. Panzica v. GalassoNew York Court of Appeals · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API