Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
David J. MYKOFF, et al., Appellants,v.Stanley I. RUBENFELD, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
April 17, 1989.
Action was brought to determine claims to easement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Becker, J., directed claimants of interest in disputed easement/bridle path to join as party defendants all persons owning property abutting the disputed easement, and claimants appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that claimants were properly required to join such persons.
Easements 61(7)141k61(7) Most Cited Cases
Claimants of interest in disputed easement/bridle path were properly directed to join as party defendants all persons owning property abutting the disputed easement, where easement was obstructed in that it had been rendered impassable by fences, trees, and bushes and had not been used as bridle path in 18 years, so co-owners of easement might object to its reestablishment as easement, and easement was ostensibly intended to be contiguous bridle path for benefit of all abutting landowners shown on map, so claim that claimants were asserting legal rights vis-a-vis defendants only was unavailing. *266 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Samuel Kirschenbaum and Ira Levine, of counsel), for appellants.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid & Donlon, P.C., Garden City (Robert F. Van der Waag, of counsel), for respondents.
Before RUBIN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law article 15 to determine claims to an easement, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered April 6, 1988, which upon the motions of the defendants Stanley and Caryl Rubenfeld's pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10), directed the plaintiffs, inter alia, to join as party defendants all persons owning property abutting the disputed easement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs claim that their interest in the disputed easement/bridle path is in no way inconsistent with the rights of adjacent property owners who also have an interest in the easement. The record reveals, however, that the easement is obstructed. It has been rendered impassable by fences, trees and bushes and, in the past 18 years has not been used as a bridle path. Thus, the co-owners of the easement may object to its re-establishment as an easement and, accordingly, should be joined as parties. Moreover, since the easement was ostensibly intended to be a contiguous bridle path for the benefit of all abutting landowners shown on the Vincent Astor map, the plaintiffs' claim that they are asserting legal rights vis-a-vis the defendants only is unavailing (see generally, Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. v. Ball, 143 App.Div. 83).
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
540 N.Y.S.2d 266, 149 A.D.2d 574
END OF DOCUMENT