Opinion
2013-11-15
Andrew PRESTIGIACOMO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. June N. AMES, et al., Defendants, Barbara Springer, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered August 3, 2012. The order granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants,” to dismiss the complaint against them and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment. Moyer and Russi, P.C., Webster (Michael Steinberg of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester (Curtis A. Johnson of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered August 3, 2012. The order granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants,” to dismiss the complaint against them and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.
Moyer and Russi, P.C., Webster (Michael Steinberg of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester (Curtis A. Johnson of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
In this action to quiet title in connection with an easement, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants” (defendants), to dismiss the complaint *858against them and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion inasmuch as it was based on documentary evidence, i.e., a deed, conclusively establishing a defense to plaintiff's complaint as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3211[a][1]; Thirty One Dev., LLC v. Cohen, 104 A.D.3d 1195, 1196, 960 N.Y.S.2d 795;see generally Camperlino v. Town of Manlius Mun. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1674, 1676, 911 N.Y.S.2d 755,lv. dismissed17 N.Y.3d 734, 929 N.Y.S.2d 62, 952 N.E.2d 1055;Blangiardo v. Horstmann, 32 A.D.3d 876, 879, 822 N.Y.S.2d 545,lv. dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 939, 834 N.Y.S.2d 713, 866 N.E.2d 1042). In opposition, plaintiff failed to assert any ground to defeat defendants' motion. In particular, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact that the language of the deed with respect to the easement contains conditions subsequent that resulted in reversion or forfeiture of the grant of the easement ( see Stratis v. Doyle, 176 A.D.2d 1096, 1098, 575 N.Y.S.2d 400;Koshian v. Kirchner, 139 A.D.2d 942, 943, 527 N.Y.S.2d 921;Fausett v. Guisewhite, 16 A.D.2d 82, 86–87, 225 N.Y.S.2d 616). Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the easement is, inter alia, “no longer legally valid” was premature ( see CPLR 3212[a] ) and, in any event, lacked merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.