Opinion
2012-12-5
OLD TOWN TREE FARM, INC., respondent, v. LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, et al., appellants.
Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Peter J. Mastaglio of counsel), for appellants. William R. Garbarino, Sayville, N.Y. (Donald R. Hamill of counsel), for respondent.
Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Peter J. Mastaglio of counsel), for appellants. William R. Garbarino, Sayville, N.Y. (Donald R. Hamill of counsel), for respondent.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action pursuant to Real Property and Proceedings Law article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), entered August 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party claiming entitlement to an easement by prescription must demonstrate the adverse, open and notorious, and continuous use of the subject property for the prescriptive period ( see Vitiello v. Merwin, 87 A.D.3d 632, 633, 928 N.Y.S.2d 581;Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683). “Absolute necessity in fact is the standard for a finding of an easement by necessity” ( Michalski v. Decker, 16 A.D.3d 469, 470, 792 N.Y.S.2d 103;see Town of Pound Ridge v. Golenbock, 264 A.D.2d 773, 774, 695 N.Y.S.2d 388;Van Schaack v. Torsoe, 161 A.D.2d 701, 703, 555 N.Y.S.2d 836;McQuinn v. Tantalo, 41 A.D.2d 575, 339 N.Y.S.2d 541).
Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by conclusively negating any one of the elements of an easement by prescription which, if proven at trial, would warrant the recognition of an easement by prescription ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 801, 920 N.Y.S.2d 683;Mee Wah Chan v. Y & Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d at 943, 919 N.Y.S.2d 74; Bova v. Vinciguerra, 184 A.D.2d 934, 934–935, 585 N.Y.S.2d 125;cf. Charlebois v. Lobe–A Prop. Owners, 193 A.D.2d 916, 917, 597 N.Y.S.2d 776). The defendants also failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by conclusively negating any one of the elements of an easement by necessity which, if proven at trial, would warrant the recognition of such an easement ( cf. Almeida v. Wells, 74 A.D.3d 1256, 1259, 904 N.Y.S.2d 736;Astwood v. Bachinsky, 186 A.D.2d 949, 950, 589 N.Y.S.2d 622).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff's opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d at 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;Starkey v. Curry, 94 A.D.3d 866, 867, 941 N.Y.S.2d 882).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.