Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sal TUSA, respondent, v. CABLEVISION, et al., defendants-appellants, Long Island Lighting Company, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; Bayview At Mattituck Homeowners Assoc., Inc., third-party defendant-appellant.
In an action to recover damages for trespass, the defendants, the defendant third-party plaintiff, and the third-party defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated March 31, 1998, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
An instrument creating an estate or interest in real property must be construed according to the intent of the parties, insofar as the intent can be gleaned from the instrument as a whole (Real Property Law § 240[3]; Mandia v. King Lbr. & Plywood Co., 179 A.D.2d 150, 158, 583 N.Y.S.2d 5). Here, when the plaintiff acquired title to his home within a residential subdivision in 1987, the conveyance from the developer was expressly made subject to a reservation of rights to grant certain easements for utility lines. That reservation, however, was by its own terms “for the benefit of and restricted solely to” the subdivision's homeowners' association and the other owners of lots in the subdivision, and was not intended to be construed “as creating any rights in or for the benefit of the general public”. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the installation on the plaintiff's property of utility lines for the benefit of the adjoining landowner, whose property was outside the subdivision, constituted a trespass (see, Phillips v. Sun Oil Co., 307 N.Y. 328, 121 N.E.2d 249).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 01, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)