MENUCHA OF NYACK, LLC, res-ap, v. GREGORY P. FISHER APPELLANTS-res, ET AL., def — (INDEX NO. 11849/08)In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff’s property is not subject to easements in favor of the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen, for ingress to and egress from the Hudson River, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from (a) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated March 29, 2011, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on so much of the first cause of action as sought a judgment declaring that its property is not encumbered by any easement in favor of the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen except an easement for an existing roadway, and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the second, third, and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen, and granted those branches of the cross motion of the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen and declaring that the plaintiff’s property is subject to the alleged easement in favor of the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen, and (b) so much of an order of the same court dated September 19, 2011, as, upon reargument, in effect, adhered to the prior determination denying those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on so much of the first cause of action as sought a judgment declaring that its property is not encumbered by any easement in favor of the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen except an easement for an existing roadway, and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the second, third, and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen, and (2) the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen cross-appeal (a) from so much of the order dated March 29, 2011, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the first cause of action as sought a judgment declaring that the plaintiff’s property is not subject to the alleged easement in favor of the defendant Gregory P. Fisher, and, in effect, denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Gregory P. Fisher and declaring that the plaintiff’s property is subject to the alleged easement in favor of the defendant Gregory P. Fisher, and (b), as limited by their brief, from so much of the order dated September 19, 2011, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue its opposition to those branches of their cross which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen and declaring that the plaintiff’s property is subject to the alleged easement in favor of those defendants, and upon reargument, denied those branches of their cross motion.
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s appeal from so much of the order dated March 29, 2011, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on so much of the first cause of action as sought a judgment declaring that its property is not encumbered by any easement in favor of the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen except an easement for an existing roadway, and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the second, third, and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen, and granted those branches of the cross motion of the defendants Gregory P. Fisher, C. Robert Clemensen, and Doris Clemensen which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen and declaring that the plaintiff’s property is subject to the alleged easement in favor of the defendants C. Robert Clemensen and Doris Clemensen is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated September 19, 2011; and it is further,
