ANDREW PRESTIGIACOMO PLAINTIFF APPELLANT v. JUNE AMES ET AL DEFENDANTS BARBARA SPRINGER ET AL DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS (2013)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

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 against 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 AD3d 1195, 1196;  see generally Camperlino v. Town of Manlius Mun. Corp., 78 AD3d 1674, 1676, lv dismissed 17 NY3d 734;  Blangiardo v. Horstmann, 32 AD3d 876, 879, lv dismissed 8 NY3d 939).   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;  Koshian v. Kirchner, 139 A.D.2d 942, 943;  Fausett v. Guisewhite, 16 A.D.2d 82, 86–87).   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.

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court