Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision reviews multiple appeals from a lower court order granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Margaret P. Bauman and dismissing third-party claims brought by Back Hills Farm Corp. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on breach of contract and promissory note claims, finding that the defendants failed to raise triable issues of fact regarding statute of limitations defenses and payment obligations. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the third-party complaint's causes of action for prescriptive easement, tortious interference, illegal eviction, and conversion due to lack of evidentiary support and failure to preserve certain arguments on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the breach‑of‑promissory‑note claim.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the breach‑of‑oral‑contract (credit‑card) claim.
- Whether the prescriptive easement claim required hostile, adverse use for the statutory period.
- Whether the tortious interference with contract claim required a valid underlying contract.
- Whether the illegal eviction counterclaim was properly denied summary judgment.
- Whether the conversion claim required proof of unauthorized dominion over the equipment.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff met her initial burden with the note and affidavit and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff established the oral agreement and the defendant’s admissions eliminated any factual dispute.
- The claim failed because the use was permissive under a lease, not hostile, and no triable issue of fact was raised.
- Summary judgment was proper because no valid contract existed between Back Hills Farm and its customers.
- The denial was proper because the plaintiff’s affidavit raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant abandoned the premises.
- Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to show unauthorized dominion; the original possession was lawful.
Key quotations
“In order to acquire an easement by prescription, a party is "required to establish by clear and convincing evidence [use] that was hostile and under a claim of right; actual; open and notorious; and continuous for the required period of 10 years" (Meyers v. Berl, 213 AD3d 1233, 1234 [4th Dept 2023]).”
“"The 'hostile and under a claim of right' element . . . require[s] that the possession [or use] be truly adverse to the rights of the party holding record title" (Meyers, 213 AD3d at 1234).”
Factual background
Margaret P. Bauman, the mother, sued her son Dennis R. Bauman for breach of a commercial promissory note and for breach of an oral agreement to pay charges on a credit‑card account. Back Hills Farm Corp., which employed Dennis and operated on land owned by Margaret, filed a third‑party action asserting a prescriptive easement, tortious interference, wrongful eviction, and conversion claims.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Erie County entered an order on October 17, 2023 granting plaintiff summary judgment on her breach‑of‑note claim, granting summary judgment on her breach‑of‑contract claim concerning a credit‑card account, and dismissing the third‑party complaint. The defendants appealed the various portions of that order.