From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bigg v. Webb Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

March 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Burchell, J.).


Judgment modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto declaring that the plaintiff has no easement over the common driveway referred to in his complaint (see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901). As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendant.

As a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to show by clear and convincing evidence (see, e.g., Bergner v. Kick, 85 A.D.2d 911, affd 56 N.Y.2d 795; Buck v. Allied Chem. Corp., 77 A.D.2d 782; Zentner v. Fiorentino, 52 A.D.2d 1036) that prior to subdivision and sale to the plaintiff Michael Bigg, Jr., and to the defendant Webb Properties, Inc., the prior owner of the properties in question created a use by which one part of the tract was subordinated to the other or that a reciprocal subordination was created. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to show that, prior to the subdivision of the properties in question, a driveway existed over the border between the two properties. Furthermore, the existence of the alleged easement was not plainly and physically apparent upon reasonable examination, nor was it necessary to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of an easement by implication (see, e.g., Abbott v. Herring, 97 A.D.2d 870, affd 62 N.Y.2d 1028; Jacobson v. Luzon Lbr. Co., 192 Misc. 183, affd 276 App. Div. 787, affd 300 N.Y. 697; Heyman v. Biggs, 223 N.Y. 118, 125; Willow Tex v. Dimacopoulos, 120 Misc.2d 8, 11, mod on other grounds 109 A.D.2d 740). Since the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form to show the existence of a triable issue of fact, the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint was appropriate (see, e.g., Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067; Shaw v. Time-Life Records, 38 N.Y.2d 201, 207). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bigg v. Webb Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Bigg v. Webb Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL L. BIGG, JR., Appellant, v. WEBB PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1986

Citations

118 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

U.S. Cablevision Corporation v. Theodoreu

In either case, the burden of establishing each of the required elements by clear and convincing evidence…

Pastore v. Zlatniski

to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to their alleged entitlement to an implied easement over a…