## Facts

- Maynard Reed owned a warehouse that was accessed by Reed, his employees, and his tenants via a driveway located on an adjoining parcel.
- Reed and his predecessors used the driveway openly and visibly for decades as a means of ingress and egress to the warehouse.
- The driveway use continued from at least 1943 and exceeded the prescriptive period.
- The use occurred without seeking or acknowledging permission from the adjoining owner.
- The adjoining parcel was acquired by James Piedimonte around 1970.
- Piedimonte later erected a permanent obstruction blocking the driveway and cutting off Reed’s vehicular access.
- Reed sued to establish an easement by prescription and to restrain interference with continued driveway use.

## Issues

1. Whether Reed proved a prescriptive easement by showing open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse use under a claim of right for the statutory period.
2. Whether defendants rebutted any presumption of adversity by showing the driveway use was permissive as a “neighborly accommodation.”

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Reed.
- The court held that the evidence supported findings that the driveway use was open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted for more than the prescriptive period.
- The court concluded the use was adverse and under a claim of right, and defendants failed to prove permissive use.
- The court approved relief declaring the prescriptive easement and restraining defendants from obstructing the driveway or otherwise interfering with Reed’s continued use.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement is established by open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period that is adverse and under a claim of right.
- Upon proof of open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period, adversity is presumed and the burden shifts to the servient owner to prove permission.
- A bare assertion that the use was a “neighborly accommodation” is insufficient to prove permissive use.
- Evidence inconsistent with permission (including attempts to block the way) supports rejection of an implied-permission theory and supports a finding of adverse use.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that Reed acquired a prescriptive easement over the driveway because the long-standing, visible, and continuous use triggered a presumption of adverse use that defendants did not rebut with proof of permission, entitling Reed to declaratory and injunctive relief against interference.


Reed v. Piedimonte, 138 A.D.2d 937, 526 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1988)