From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manhattan Beach Community Group, Inc v. Laboz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 5, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"It is well established that when property is described in a conveyance with reference to a subdivision map showing streets abutting on the lot conveyed, easements in the private streets appurtenant to the lot generally pass with the grant (see, 1 Rasch, Real Property Law and Practice § 744 * * * Weil v Atlantic Beach Holding Corp., 1 N.Y.2d 20; Erit Realty Corp. v Sea Gate Assn., 259 N.Y. 466)" (Fischer v. Liebman, 137 A.D.2d 485, 487). In determining if there is an implied easement by grant, the main factor to be considered is the intent of the parties to the grant, taking into consideration "`the circumstances attending the transaction, the particular situation of the parties, the state of the country and the state of the thing granted'" (Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N.Y. 136, 147-148).

The plaintiffs' contention that they had an implied easement by grant over the defendants' property, which was part of a private walkway called the Esplanade, is without merit. First, none of the plaintiffs' property abuts the Esplanade (see, 1 Rasch, Real Property Law and Practice § 744; Weil v. Atlantic Beach Holding Corp., supra; Erit Reality Corp. v. Sea Gate Assn., supra; Reis v. City of New York, 188 N.Y. 58; Fischer v. Liebman, supra). Second, the deeds to the properties of the plaintiffs Stern and Maltz make no reference to maps which depict the Esplanade (see, 1 Rasch, Real Property Law and Practice § 744; Weil v Atlantic Beach Holding Corp., supra; Erit Reality Corp. v. Sea Gate Assn., supra; Fischer v. Liebman, supra). Finally, the Esplanade was subdivided into separate lots, and sold separately (cf., Weil v. Atlantic Beach Holding Corp., supra). Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that an implied easement by grant existed by clear and convincing proof (see, Huggins v. Castle Estates, 36 N.Y.2d 427). Thompson, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Manhattan Beach Community Group, Inc v. Laboz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Manhattan Beach Community Group, Inc v. Laboz

Case Details

Full title:MANHATTAN BEACH COMMUNITY GROUP, INC., et al., Appellants, v. JACK LABOZ…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

Michalski v. Decker

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff failed to establish…

Manhattan Beach Community Group, Inc. v. Laboz

Decided June 13, 1996 Appeal from (2d Dept: 224 A.D.2d 394) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…