From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raksin v. Crown-Kingston Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1998
254 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 26, 1998

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


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 30, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 23, 1998, made on reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 1998, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. The plaintiff allegedly fell on snow and ice while walking through an alleyway. The alleyway was owned by the defendant Crown-Kingston Realty Associates (hereinafter CKRA) and managed by the defendant Vicker's Management. The alleyway was subject to an easement benefiting property owners, including the plaintiff, who resided in homes along the alleyway. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that as owner and manager, respectively, of the servient estate they did not have a duty to clear the snow and ice from the alleyway.

The owners of the dominant estates in the easement are responsible for maintaining and repairing the easement. A servient owner is under no obligation to construct means for the enjoyment of the easement, and is not under any duty to make any repairs to the easement, absent an agreement to the contrary ( see, Elzer v. Nassau County, 111 A.D.2d 212; Cesario v. Chiapparine, 21 A.D.2d 272; Greenfarb v. R.S.K Realty Corp., 256 N.Y. 130). When an easement is created for the benefit of multiple dominant tenements, all owners are mutually burdened with the construction, maintenance, and repairs of the subject property ( see, People v. Wittman, 205 Misc. 1046).

Thus, CKRA, as the owner of the servient estate, owed no duty to the plaintiff or other dominant owners, and there are no questions of fact warranting a trial as to either defendant. The plaintiff's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Raksin v. Crown-Kingston Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1998
254 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Raksin v. Crown-Kingston Realty Associates

Case Details

Full title:MENDEL RAKSIN, Also Known as MENDEL RASKIN, Appellant, v. CROWN-KINGSTON…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 265

Citing Cases

Dinaburg v. Denihan

Moreover, Dinaburg admits that there is an area of "natural brush" along the edge of Moriches Bay. Absent an…

Zehnick v. Meadowbrook II Associates

First, we disagree with plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to…