Property · MBE-tested

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

86 A.D.2d 749·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1982·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

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