From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A.J.P. Auto Sales Ltd. v. Dejana

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2012
96 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-20

A.J.P. AUTO SALES LIMITED, INC., et al., respondents, v. Peter DEJANA, et al., appellants.


Avrutine & Associates, PLLC, Syosset, N.Y. (Daniel L. Millman of counsel), for appellants.

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 20, inter alia, to determine claims to an easement and for injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered June 8, 2011, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them, enjoining the defendants from, inter alia, interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the subject easement.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs and the defendants own neighboring parcels of real property. The plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 20, inter alia, to determine their claims to an alleged easement over a certain portion of the defendants' property, as described in the deed conveying the burdened property to the defendants' predecessor-in-interest, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the easement. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court, among other things, determined that the plaintiffs established the existence of an easement and enjoined the defendants from, inter alia, interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the subject easement.

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the plaintiffs established at trial the existence of an easement, as to which the defendants had notice in the defendants' recorded chain of title ( see Corrarino v. Byrnes, 43 A.D.3d 421, 423, 841 N.Y.S.2d 122;Breakers Motel v. Sunbeach Montauk Two, 224 A.D.2d 473, 474, 638 N.Y.S.2d 135). Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that its prior orders denying the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive relief, did not constitute the law of the case ( see J.A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enters., 68 N.Y.2d 397, 402, 509 N.Y.S.2d 520, 502 N.E.2d 197).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

A.J.P. Auto Sales Ltd. v. Dejana

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2012
96 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

A.J.P. Auto Sales Ltd. v. Dejana

Case Details

Full title:A.J.P. AUTO SALES LIMITED, INC., et al., respondents, v. Peter DEJANA, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 20, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4958
946 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Cnty. of Suffolk v. Pallotta & Assocs. Dev. Inc.

Thus, knowledge of the covenants and restrictions is imputed to Pallotta and Pallotta & Associates, It is…