Nixon v. Morris
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtEgan Jr., J.
*1171To obtain an easement by prescription, the Morrises would need to establish that their use of the path was “adverse, open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for the 10-year prescriptive period” (Bouton v Williams, 42 AD3d 795, 795 [2007]; see Lew Beach Co. v Carlson, 77 AD3d 1127,1128 [2010]; Weir v Gibbs, 46 AD3d 1192, 1193 [2007]; State of New York v Johnson, 45 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2007]). As the record reflects that they cannot satisfy at least one of the foregoing elements, Supreme Court erred in failing to grant plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. JohnsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Lew Beach Co. v. CarlsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Aubuchon Realty Co. v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Rivermere Apartments, Inc. v. Stoneleigh Parkway, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Weir v. GibbsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gulati v. O'LearyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Ward v. Murariu Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Alexander v. OakleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Woehrel v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
- Woehrel v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.