Opinion
17466 Index No. 25834/17E Case No. 2022–03682
03-09-2023
CIMINELLO PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW 970 COLGATE AVENUE CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Leech Tishman Robinson Brog, PLLC, New York (David Abramovitz of counsel), for appellant. Terrence O'Connor, P.C., Bronx (Terrence J. O'Connor of counsel), for New 970 Colgate Avenue Corp., respondent. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for Bronx River Avenue, LLC, respondent.
Leech Tishman Robinson Brog, PLLC, New York (David Abramovitz of counsel), for appellant.
Terrence O'Connor, P.C., Bronx (Terrence J. O'Connor of counsel), for New 970 Colgate Avenue Corp., respondent.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for Bronx River Avenue, LLC, respondent.
Webber, J.P., Kern, Oing, Friedman, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.) entered March 4, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the claims for a declaration that plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over Close Avenue to its full length and width and for compensatory and punitive damages for trespass, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite elements of exclusivity and hostility required for a prescriptive easement (see Estate of Becker v. Murtagh, 19 N.Y.3d 75, 81, 83, 945 N.Y.S.2d 196, 968 N.E.2d 433 [2012] ). Consonant with our prior decision affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction ( Ciminello Prop. Assoc. v. New 970 Colgate Ave. Corp., 173 A.D.3d 447, 103 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2019] ), the record on summary judgment reflects that, since at least 1999, defendants had controlled access to the south gate at Story Avenue, and that plaintiff and its tenants’ use of the disputed portion of Close Avenue had been permissive ( id. at 448, 103 N.Y.S.3d 43 ). The testimony of plaintiffs’ tenants further established that they permitted members of the general public to access Close Avenue and traverse the south gate during regular business hours by using the keys obtained from defendants.
Although the owner of the servient estate cannot defeat an existing easement merely by asserting subsequent permission (see e.g. Brocco v. Mileo, 170 A.D.2d 732, 733, 565 N.Y.S.2d 602 [3d Dept. 1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 853, 573 N.Y.S.2d 467, 577 N.E.2d 1059 [1991] ), here, nothing about plaintiff's historical use of Close Avenue suggested that it excluded defendants from using the disputed portion of the road, or that its use otherwise constituted "an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner's rights" so as to raise a question of fact as to the element of hostility ( Aboulissan v. Kingsland 79, LLC, 179 A.D.3d 878, 879, 114 N.Y.S.3d 663 [2d Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]). As a practical matter, plaintiff could not have refused access to defendants, as the record established that defendants maintained keys to the south gate after providing a set to plaintiffs’ tenants, and witnesses averred that, historically and currently, members of the public have been entering Close Avenue through the south gate to conduct business or make deliveries (see Susquehanna Realty Corp. v. Barth, 108 A.D.2d 909, 485 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2d Dept. 1985] ["Use of a particular strip of land in common with the general public will not ripen into an easement by prescription"]).
The court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages because plaintiff failed to establish actual injury or loss of use, as opposed to mere inconvenience ( Jenkins v. Etlinger, 55 N.Y.2d 35, 40, 447 N.Y.S.2d 696, 432 N.E.2d 589 [1982] ). Although punitive damages in some instances may lie where only nominal damages are awarded (see e.g. McWeeney v. Lambe, 138 A.D.3d 796, 797, 30 N.Y.S.3d 189 [2d Dept. 2016] ), plaintiff is not entitled to nominal damages for the reasons discussed above, and the record lacks evidence of "spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant" ( Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence, 20 N.Y.3d 506, 511, 964 N.Y.S.2d 69, 986 N.E.2d 903 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.