From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Fuchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.)


Ordered that the cross appeal from the resettled judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly granted the defendants' motion to resettle the judgment to declare that they had an easement over the paved driveway on the disputed property. A motion to resettle is the appropriate procedural vehicle to correct an inadvertent omission so as to conform the judgment with the court's original decision (see, Ansonia Assocs. v. Ansonia Tenant's Coalition, 171 A.D.2d 411, 412; Breslow v. Solomon, 105 A.D.2d 824; Di Prospero v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 479; see also, Matter of Calm Lake Dev. v. Town Bd., 213 A.D.2d 979, 980). There is no specific time limit within which a party must make a motion to resettle ( see, Ansonia Assocs. v. Ansonia Tenant's Coalition, supra, at 413; Di Prospero v. Ford Motor Co., supra, at 480).

The plaintiffs had originally opposed the motion to resettle on procedural grounds, but thereafter opposed entry of the resettled judgment on the ground that the defendants had failed to establish their entitlement to prescriptive rights. Our review of the record reveals that at trial, there was conflicting testimony as to whether the defendants' use of the driveway was permissive. It is well settled that issues of credibility are properly determined by the trier of fact and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal where it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, DiSalvo v. Ordway, 208 A.D.2d 798). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court's finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish a limited right of ingress and egress over the disputed property in favor of the defendants ( see, Borruso v. Morreale, 129 A.D.2d 604, 605).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Washington v. Fuchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Washington v. Fuchs

Case Details

Full title:MARY B. WASHINGTON et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. HERMAN FUCHS et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 306

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Beatrice T

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. A motion to…

Evans v. Bd. of Educ. of Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court further determined that the motion was, in effect, a motion…